2015603 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had lodged a Protection Visa (XA 866) application which was refused by the Department, and a merits review of that decision was pending before the Tribunal. The applicant sought a Bridging E visa while the merits review was ongoing.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E visa, specifically whether they satisfied clause 050.212(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to having made a valid application for a substantive visa that has not been finally determined. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider clause 050.223, which requires satisfaction that the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging visa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met clause 050.212(3) as their Protection Visa application was still under review. However, in assessing clause 050.223, the Tribunal considered the applicant's criminal convictions for Common Law Assault and False Imprisonment arising from a family violence incident. The Tribunal noted the delegate's description of protracted and deliberate violence, including the applicant holding the victim down by placing his foot on her face for approximately fifteen minutes and subsequently locking her in a room and taking her phone. Applying the principles from *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA*, which consider past immigration history, breaches of law, wilfulness, mitigating circumstances, and contrition, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions of a Bridging visa. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the eligibility 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.