1900181 (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)). The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on the visa, a requirement under clause 050.223 of the relevant regulations. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically clause 050.212(3A), and crucially, whether it was satisfied that the applicant would comply with any imposed conditions.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal first confirmed that the applicant met clause 050.212(3A) as they had sought judicial review of a decision to refuse a substantive visa, and those proceedings were ongoing. However, the central issue revolved around clause 050.223, which mandates satisfaction that the applicant will abide by visa conditions. The Tribunal outlined that assessing this involved considering the applicant's likely future conduct, drawing on factors such as past immigration history, breaches of immigration laws, the wilfulness of those breaches, mitigating circumstances, and contrition, as per the principles in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA*. The Tribunal noted that if satisfied of compliance, even with security, the clause is met, but if not satisfied regardless of security, the clause is not met.

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 definition of a relevant eligible non-citizen under clause 051.211. Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.