2003124 (MIGRATION)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant sought this visa following a lengthy and complex immigration history, including multiple applications for a Protection visa, appeals to various courts, and the subsequent cessation of previous bridging visas. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant would abide by the conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, as required by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if it was satisfied that the applicant would comply with any conditions attached to the Bridging E visa. In assessing this, the Tribunal was guided by the principles established in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA*, which stipulate that relevant considerations include the applicant's past immigration history, the nature and wilfulness of any breaches, mitigating circumstances, and evidence of contrition. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the imposition of a security bond would ensure compliance, noting that if satisfaction regarding future compliance could not be reached, even with a bond, the clause would not be met.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa. While acknowledging that the applicant's companion may have experienced an upsetting encounter during an interview with the delegate, the Tribunal found that this incident did not alter its assessment of the applicant's likelihood to abide by visa conditions. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would comply with the conditions of a Bridging E visa, irrespective of any security that might be imposed, and therefore clause 050.223 was not met.