1817771 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant sought to satisfy the criterion that he was making, or was the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, as set out in subclause 050.212(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant had indicated an intention to lodge a Partner visa application in the future, but had not done so at the time of his Bridging visa E application or at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had made, or was the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. In considering this, the Tribunal had regard to the guidance provided in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual 3, and the principles established in cases such as *Chen v MIMIA* [2001] FCA 285 and *Lin v MIMIA* [2001] FCA 283, particularly concerning the genuineness of the applicant's intentions. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had arrived in Australia on a temporary visa with a "No Further Stay" condition, and had remained in Australia unlawfully for approximately 13 months after his visa expired. During this period, he was involved in a domestic violence incident and an assault on an arresting officer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding his passport and the arrangements for his departure was equivocal. While the applicant claimed his brother had purchased a ticket for his departure, there was a lack of clear evidence regarding his passport's location and possession, and no proof of payment for the flight. Although a reservation for departure on 3 July 2018 was accepted, the overall evidence did not satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant had made acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.