1831346 (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had also applied for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, but was found not to be a relevant eligible non-citizen for that visa. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, as required by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was satisfied that the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, and if so, which conditions should be imposed. The Tribunal considered that conditions 8101 (no work requirement), 8207 (no study requirement), and 8401 (reporting requirement) should be imposed. Condition 8101 is mandatory, while conditions 8207 and 8401 are discretionary. The Tribunal noted that the applicant faced serious criminal charges involving a child, and that imposing the no study requirement would prevent him from coming into contact with children if released into the community. The reporting requirement was considered necessary for the department to maintain contact with the applicant.

In determining whether the applicant would abide by these conditions, the Tribunal considered the applicant's likely conduct, referencing the principles in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289. These principles include examining past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, mitigating circumstances, and contrition. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed on the basis that it was not satisfied the applicant would abide by the conditions, particularly in light of the serious criminal charges he faced.

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