1814886 (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 been in Australia unlawfully for over six years and had breached a visa condition by working. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant would abide by visa conditions if granted a bridging visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on a bridging visa. In assessing this, the Tribunal considered relevant factors including the applicant's immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, the presence of mitigating circumstances, and any evidence of contrition, as guided by the principles in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's eligibility for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for that visa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had entered Australia on a tourist visa with a condition prohibiting work, which ceased in May 2012. The applicant subsequently remained in Australia unlawfully for over six years and breached the no-work condition. The Tribunal determined that conditions including no work, reporting as directed, notifying a change of address, and not engaging in criminal conduct should be imposed on any bridging visa granted. However, given the applicant's prolonged period of unlawful status and the wilful breach of visa conditions, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by future visa conditions.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.