1925028 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by an applicant with an extensive criminal record, including fines, penalties, and a six-month jail sentence. The applicant claimed to have changed and presented medical conditions, including memory loss, which they argued affected their capacity to participate in the hearing. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically whether they would abide by any imposed conditions.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were: (a) what conditions should be imposed on the Bridging E visa, including any mandatory conditions; and (b) whether the applicant would abide by those conditions, both without and, if necessary, with the imposition of a security. The Tribunal noted that for a Bridging E visa to be granted, it must be satisfied that the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed. This assessment involves considering the applicant's past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, mitigating circumstances, and evidence of contrition, as per the principles in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA*.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's medical conditions, including memory loss, and their potential impact on participation. However, it found no medical evidence detailing the extent of this impact. While the applicant experienced some memory lapses regarding specific dates, the Tribunal found them responsive and capable of participating in the hearing, placing no adverse weight on these inconsistencies. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to impose standard conditions, including a prohibition on criminal conduct. Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Bridging E visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirement that they would abide by the visa conditions.