1812700 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)). The applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, had previously overstayed her visa and become an unlawful non-citizen. She subsequently applied for a Bridging E visa on the basis that she would depart Australia, but admitted she would not do so. The applicant and her family had also applied for protection visas. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant would abide by the conditions of a bridging visa, and whether a security bond would be sufficient to ensure compliance.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates satisfaction that the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on a bridging visa. In assessing this, the Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's likely conduct, including her past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition. The Tribunal also considered whether a security bond would be a sufficient incentive for compliance. Additionally, the Tribunal considered a separate application for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, determining whether the applicant was a relevant eligible non-citizen for that visa subclass.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's past conduct, including her prolonged period as an unlawful non-citizen and her admission that she would not depart Australia as initially stated, indicated a likelihood of non-compliance with visa conditions. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the delegate's finding that the applicant had been working unlawfully for several years. The Tribunal concluded that, regardless of any security bond imposed, the applicant was unlikely to abide by conditions such as no work, no study, reporting as directed, maintaining a specified address, notifying changes of address, and not engaging in criminal conduct. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for a Subclass 051 visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the bridging visa was not granted.