1933068 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, subclass 050 (Bridging (General)), made by an applicant seeking to satisfy criteria under clauses 050.212(3A) and (4)(a). The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant would abide by the conditions of the visa, specifically clause 050.223.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the time of decision criteria, specifically clauses 050.211 and 050.212, and crucially, whether the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed if granted the bridging visa. The applicant's eligibility for clause 050.212(3A) was based on an ongoing judicial review of a substantive visa decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant continued to satisfy the time of decision criteria, including clause 050.212(3A) and (4)(a), as the judicial review proceedings had not been finally determined. However, when assessing the applicant's propensity to abide by visa conditions, the Tribunal considered the applicant's immigration history, which included periods of unlawful status and breaches of work conditions. The applicant conceded past breaches of 'no work' conditions and the cancellation of a previous student visa due to non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's admission of employing others without evidence of legal compliance and driving without a licence, indicating a disregard for Australian law. Despite the applicant's assurances and his sister's offer of financial support, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the 'no work' condition (8101). Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.