1906158 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in April 2017 and held various visas, including a Student visa. In December 2018, his Student visa was cancelled under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) after he was charged with criminal offences. He subsequently became an unlawful citizen and was detained. The applicant had also been subject to two apprehended violence orders, one of which was current at the time of the decision. On 11 March 2019, the applicant lodged a valid application for a Protection visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E visa, specifically clause 050.212 and clause 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Clause 050.212 requires the applicant to have made a valid application for a substantive visa that has not been finally determined, or to satisfy the Tribunal that they would apply for such a visa. Clause 050.223 requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on the bridging visa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met clause 050.212 as he had lodged a valid Protection visa application which had not yet been determined. However, the Tribunal considered clause 050.223 and the applicant's history, including the criminal charges and the apprehended violence orders. The Tribunal noted that condition 8101 (not engaging in work) was mandatory for a Bridging E visa in these circumstances, along with conditions requiring reporting, notification of address changes, and not engaging in criminal behaviour. Applying the principles from *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289, the Tribunal considered the applicant's past immigration history and breaches of law. Given the serious nature of the criminal charges and the existence of an active apprehended violence order, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions of a bridging visa, irrespective of any security that might be imposed.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa.