2013516 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050, before the Tribunal. The applicant sought to meet criterion cl.050.212(3) by having made a valid application for a protection visa, which had not yet been finally determined. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had made a valid protection visa application, which had been refused by the Department and was under review by the Tribunal, thus meeting this criterion.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was satisfied that the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, as required by cl.050.223. In determining this, the Tribunal considered the applicant's past immigration history, including any previous breaches of immigration laws, the significance and wilfulness of those breaches, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition shown. The Tribunal also considered specific conditions that might be imposed, including not engaging in work (cl.8101), reporting requirements (cl.8401), notifying changes of address (cl.8506), and not engaging in criminal conduct (cl.8564).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's conduct, noting that the applicant had been in unlawful status, had not attempted to contact immigration authorities, and had worked without work rights. Furthermore, the applicant faced a criminal charge. These factors led the Tribunal to conclude that it was not satisfied the applicant would abide by the conditions that would be imposed on a Bridging E visa, particularly condition 8101 (no work) and condition 8564 (no criminal conduct). The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a Subclass 051 Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.