1920687 (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)). The applicant had arrived in Australia using a false passport and had a history of extensive non-compliance with Australia's migration laws. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant would abide by the conditions of a bridging visa if one were granted.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria under clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires satisfaction that the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on a bridging visa. While the applicant met the criterion under clause 050.212(3A) by having an application for judicial review of a Protection Visa refusal pending, this did not automatically lead to the grant of a bridging visa. The Tribunal considered the applicant's past immigration history, including breaches of migration laws, the wilfulness of those breaches, and the absence of contrition, as relevant factors in assessing likely future conduct.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289, which outlines considerations for determining an applicant's likelihood to abide by visa conditions. These include past immigration breaches, their significance and wilfulness, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition. The Tribunal found that the applicant's history of using a bogus passport and extensive non-compliance demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that led it to conclude that the applicant would not abide by the conditions of a bridging visa, such as reporting requirements, maintaining a fixed address, and not engaging in work or criminal conduct.

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.