2004797 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa by a citizen of Malaysia. The applicant had arrived in Australia in January 2015 and held various visas, including a Student visa which ceased in August 2016, rendering her an unlawful non-citizen until she lodged a Protection visa in August 2019. During this period, she was granted a Bridging visa C, with a condition prohibiting work. Subsequently, the applicant was found to have breached condition 8101 by working unlawfully and was detained.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant should be granted a Bridging E visa, specifically whether the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on such a visa, as required by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause necessitates consideration of the applicant's likely future conduct, including their past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, the presence of mitigating circumstances, and any demonstrated contrition.

The Tribunal reasoned that in assessing an applicant's likelihood to abide by visa conditions, regard must be had to their past conduct, referencing the principles established in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* and *Liu v MIAC*. The applicant's history of remaining in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen for an extended period and her subsequent breach of a work prohibition condition on her Bridging visa C were significant factors. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions of a Bridging E visa, even if a financial incentive were considered, leading to the affirmation of the original decision.