1924627 (Migration)

The applicant, an unlawful non-citizen, sought review of a decision concerning their application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050. The dispute centred on whether the applicant would abide by the conditions imposed on such a visa. The matter was heard by Denis Dragovic.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was satisfied, pursuant to clause 050.223 of the Regulations, that the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa. This required the Tribunal to consider the likely conduct of the applicant, taking into account relevant factors such as their immigration history, any breaches of immigration laws, the wilfulness of such breaches, mitigating circumstances, and any contrition shown. The Tribunal also had to determine which conditions were applicable to the applicant's visa, specifically considering clause 050.613A and the mandatory imposition of condition 8101 ('no work'), as well as other potentially applicable conditions.

The Tribunal reasoned that to satisfy clause 050.223, it must be convinced of the applicant's future compliance with visa conditions. The Tribunal noted that relevant considerations for assessing likely conduct, as established in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289, include past immigration history and any breaches of law. In this instance, the applicant had no prior encounters with the law and demonstrated strong community ties, suggesting they would abide by imposed conditions. The Tribunal identified condition 8101 as mandatory, and considered other potential conditions such as 8201, 8207, 8401, 8505, 8506, 8507, 8508, 8510, 8511, 8512, 8548, and 8564.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. This indicates that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions, or that the appropriate conditions had not been properly considered and applied in the original decision.