1821435 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)). The primary dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether the applicant would comply with the conditions of the visa, specifically the condition prohibiting engagement in work, and whether he would receive adequate financial support in the community.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant would comply with mandatory condition 8101 (not to engage in work) if granted a Bridging E visa, and whether he would be financially supported in the community. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's history of non-compliance with visa conditions and the evidence presented regarding financial support.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood that condition 8101 prohibited work, yet he had worked in April 2018 while knowing he did not hold a valid visa to remain or work in Australia. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's decision to report an assault did not indicate ignorance of his unlawful status. Furthermore, the Tribunal placed no weight on purported financial support statements, as they were translated using "Google Translate" and the individuals providing them could not be verified. The Tribunal also noted that specific clauses in Schedule 2 of the Regulations mandated the imposition of condition 8101 if the applicant were granted a Bridging E visa, particularly given his application for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that it was not satisfied the applicant would comply with the conditions of the visa, particularly the prohibition on work, and that there was insufficient evidence of reliable financial support.