2011107 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa by a citizen of China. The applicant had arrived in Australia in July 2008 and, after holding a temporary visa, applied for a protection visa. He was subsequently granted a series of bridging visas until November 2009. Between November 2009 and February 2020, the applicant remained in Australia unlawfully without work rights. He sought a further bridging visa in relation to a Federal Circuit Court review of his protection visa application, despite previous appeals to the Federal Circuit Court, Federal Court, and High Court all having been dismissed. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant would comply with the conditions imposed on any bridging visa granted to him, as required by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause necessitates satisfaction that the applicant will abide by any imposed conditions. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's past immigration history, including any breaches of immigration laws, the significance and wilfulness of those breaches, the presence of mitigating circumstances, and any evidence of contrition, drawing on principles established in cases such as *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN)* (2002) 70 ALD 289.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had remained in Australia unlawfully for over 10 years and had worked unlawfully for a significant period. Furthermore, the applicant had not informed the court of the extensive judicial history of his protection visa application. Given this history of non-compliance and the lack of any indication of contrition or mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions that would be imposed on a bridging visa, including conditions such as not engaging in work, not engaging in studies, notifying of address changes, and reporting as required. Consequently, clause 050.223 was not met. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa (Subclass 051).