1814191 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)), made by an applicant who had overstayed their Electronic Travel Authority and was an unlawful non-citizen. The applicant had also applied for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, but did not meet the eligibility criteria for that visa. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for the Bridging E visa, specifically whether they would abide by visa conditions.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria under cl.050.212 and cl.050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Clause 050.212(3) requires that the applicant has made a valid application for a substantive visa that has not been finally determined, or that the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant would apply for such a visa within a specified period. Clause 050.223 requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions of the visa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met cl.050.212(3) as they had a pending application for a protection visa, which is a substantive visa, and this application had not been finally determined. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions of a Bridging E visa under cl.050.223. This was based on the applicant's history of breaching their ETA conditions by working, becoming an unlawful non-citizen, and their subsequent withdrawal of a request for voluntary removal from Australia. The applicant expressed fear of returning to Malaysia due to potential persecution related to political activities, indicating an unwillingness to depart Australia voluntarily.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, as the applicant failed to satisfy the criterion regarding abiding by visa conditions.