2015303 (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Tribunal regarding the refusal to grant the applicant, a Malaysian national, a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had resided in Australia for approximately 13 years and was seeking the visa in conjunction with an unresolved partner visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's extensive history of non-compliance with Australian migration laws and conditions attached to previous visas.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, as stipulated by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This assessment involved considering the applicant's past conduct, including significant breaches of immigration laws, the wilfulness of those breaches, any mitigating circumstances, and evidence of contrition. The applicant's history included periods of unlawful status, working without work rights on multiple occasions, returning to Australia under a different name during an exclusion period, and holding a student visa without undertaking studies.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289, which guide the assessment of an applicant's likely future conduct based on their past immigration history. The Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated a pattern of significant and wilful non-compliance over many years, including working unlawfully and remaining in Australia unlawfully. Despite the applicant's claims of legal name change and his current relationship with an Australian permanent resident, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he would abide by the conditions of a Bridging E visa, given his persistent disregard for immigration laws.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria for its grant.