2101310 (Migration)

[2021] AATA 885

2101310 (Migration) [2021] AATA 885 (18 February 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:2101310

MEMBER:Meena Sripathy

DATE:18 February 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.

Statement made on 18 February 2021 at 10:06am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – abiding by Bridging Visa E conditions – domestic violence convictions – criminal history – fear of killing – risk to the community – character references – intention to leave Australia – best interests of the applicant’s children – past breaches of bail conditions – accommodation arrangements – decision under review affirmed         

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 73, 109, 140, 189, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 050.212, 050.221, 050.223, 050.613; Schedule 8

CASES

Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) (2002) 70 ALD 289

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s.73 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 2 February 2021. At that time Class WE contained two subclasses: Subclasses 050 and 051. In the present case, the applicant is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 visa, which are set out in Part 050 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations (the Regulations). Relevantly to this matter, the primary criteria include cl.050.223.

3. The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 4 February 2021 on the basis that delegate was not satisfied that the applicant will abide by conditions if granted a Bridging Visa E. 

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 February 2021 by video conference to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant’s registered migration agent participated in the hearing also by video link. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Dari and English languages who appeared by video link.

5. The issue in this case is whether the applicant will abide by conditions imposed on the visa.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Background and History

7. The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] March 2010 as the holder of a Provisional Spouse visas subclass 309. He was granted a permanent Spouse subclass 100 visa on 17 November 2011.  The applicant travelled overseas on numerous occasions, including January – February 2012, November -December 2016 and May – July 2017. On 8 December 2016, while overseas he was granted a Return Resident visa Subclass 155. 

8. In June 2019 the applicant was arrested and remanded into criminal custody in relation to domestic violence charges.

9. On 26 August 2019 the applicant’s Resident Return visa was cancelled under s109 of the Act for the reason that he had provided incorrect information in his visa application relating to his criminal history. The applicant did not seek merits review of that decision and became an unlawful non citizen following this decision.

10. [In] February 2020 the applicant was convicted on numerous charges and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of [term].  He was released on parole [in] June 2020. Following his release the applicant was detained by Australian Border Force officials under s189 of the Act and brought to [a] Immigration Detention Centre, where he currently remains.

11. On 29 July 2020 the applicant lodged a Protection visa application and associated Bridging Visa E (BVE) application. The BVE was refused on 4 August 2020 and the refusal was affirmed by the AAT (differently constituted) on 17 August 2020.  

12. On 3 September 2020 the Protection visa application was refused by the Department. The applicant applied for merits review of that decision on 14 September 2020.  On 27 October 2020 the AAT (differently constituted) found that it had no jurisdiction to review this decision because the application was made outside the time limit. The applicant lodged an application for judicial review of the AAT no jurisdiction decision [in] December 2020.

13. On 2 February 2021 the applicant lodged the present BVE application.  On 3 February 2021 the delegate’s decision record indicates that he was interviewed by an officer of the Department by telephone in respect of this application.  No record of notes of this interview have been provided to the Tribunal.   

14. The following documents were provided to the Tribunal by the Department: a Located Person Interview dated [in] June 2020, conducted in English. The applicant referred in this interview to being unable to return to his home country due to fear of being killed.  Detention Client Interview Part A dated 23 June 2020, conducted in English.  He indicated at this interview his intention to lodge a Protection visa, and that he cannot return to his country of nationality because he has children onshore and fears for his life. Departmental detention file records [were] also provided.  In a Detention Client Interview Part B Removal Planning Interview conducted on 12 November 2020, also conducted in English, the applicant is indicated as stating he ‘just wanted to return as soon as possible’.

15. Also before the Tribunal are the decision and file records relating to his previous BVE review application to the AAT (differently constituted) in matter 2012533, determined on 17 August 2020.  In the reasons for decision of that matter information from the applicant’s criminal history obtained from the NSW Police Fact Sheet, discussed with the applicant at the hearing held on 12 August 2020, were set out in some detail.  A copy of the AAT ‘s decision in that matter was provided to the applicant at his request prior to the hearing in this matter.

16. The Tribunal initially invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 11 February 2021 and postponed this at his request to 15 February 2021 to allow him further time to obtain supporting documents. 

17. On 15 February 2021, the Tribunal received a notice of appointment of representative on behalf of the applicant and a submission.  The submission argues that the applicant ‘is a changed person’ and does not pose any danger to his ex wives, children and the broader community.  It refers to him having received comprehensive psychological treatment and that he has friends, community members and his psychologist who are willing to provide character references to confirm his changed character and personality. It is submitted he has participated in anger management and domestic violence courses which have helped him to understand Australian laws and regulations and coping mechanisms to control his anger. The submission states that prior to going int immigration detention the applicant was in prison for 12 months and is highly remorseful for the crimes committed and has already served his sentence for those crimes. It is submitted that indefinite detention is against his basic human rights and he has a right to live like a free man.  Before coming to Australia he had no criminal history and was of good fame and character.  The submissions make reference to the applicant’s strong ties to Australia and best interests of his children to have a relationship with him, referencing Ministerial Direction No 55.[1]  The submission states the applicant will be supported by [siblings] and family in [Country 1].  It refers to factors that contributed to the applicant’s past conduct and reiterates that he poses no risk to the Australian community in future and acknowledges his past conduct and behaviour were not positive and needs to change.  

    Tribunal hearing

    [1] The Tribunal notes this Direction relates to Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s501 and does not apply in the present case, and in any event was revoked in 2014 and replaced by a subsequent Directions.

18. At the hearing the applicant confirmed his migration history and the countries he has previously lived in.  He arrived in Australia in March 2020 from Afghanistan.  He had been living in Afghanistan for around two years prior to that.  Before that he lived in [Country 2] for some 4-5 years and also lived in [Country 3]. He came to Australia on a Partner visa sponsored by his first wife.  They were together for about two years prior to him coming to Australia and two years after. They had one child together, born in [year]. The relationship ended because of differences between them, around 2013.  The applicant said he had contact with his child of that relationship through legal mediation from the time of their divorce in 2013 until about two years before he went to jail (that is, until 2017). He has had no contact with this child since then. After the first relationship he had another relationship around 2013.  He had [children] of this relationship, born in [specified years]. The applicant confirmed he is separated from his second wife.  He said she suffers some mental health issues. His last contact with her was some 18 months ago, before he went into prison. He has had no contact with her or his children since then.

19. The applicant confirmed he has no other blood relatives in Australia. Overseas he has a father, who lives in [Country 4], and [specified family members]. [Specified siblings] live in Afghanistan now and [others] are in [Country 1].  He is in contact with his relatives in Afghanistan but not that often because their situation there makes him sad.

20. The applicant confirmed he has travelled overseas three times since he came to Australia. In 2012 he transferred his family from Afghanistan to [Country 1] for safety. He visited them in [Country 1]. In 2016 he travelled to Afghanistan.  In 2017 he went to Iran to see his family.

21. Prior to coming into immigration detention, he was in criminal detention for [period].  Before that he lived with his wife and children in [specified suburbs]. Later in the hearing he mentioned that he lived alone for a period in [Suburb 1] in 2017-2018 when he was separated form his wife.

22. He worked as [an occupation 1] before going to jail.  He worked since his arrival in Australia.  When asked if he has received financial support in the past from his family he said he has received support from his [siblings] in [Country 1]. They sent him money in the past which he would repay when he could afford it. They last sent him money about three years ago. The Tribunal asked if his [siblings] were aware of his circumstances being in jail and immigration detention.  He said he informed them after he came into immigration detention but not before that. They have not sent him money since then, but he is confident they would if he asked.   [These siblings] in [Country 1] are both unmarried and they are both employed, one is in [an industry] and the other works as an [occupation 2].

23. The applicant confirmed he made an application for judicial review of the decision of the AAT about the jurisdiction to review his protection visa refusal decision. He has not heard anything further about the application since then.

24. The Tribunal explained the issue before it is whether he will abide by the visa conditions if granted this visa.  It explained the conditions that will be imposed.  The Tribunal explained that, in addition to the discretionary conditions mentioned by the delegate (8401-report as directed, 8506-notify address, 8564-not engage in criminal conduct) the Tribunal considers that 8101- no work may also apply as a mandatory condition.

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was familiar with the account of his criminal history provided in the previous AAT’s decision record, which referred to the source of that information being the NSW Police Force statement of facts.  He agreed he was. He was asked if he wanted to say anything about the evidence as recorded in that decision record (a copy of which he confirmed he had). In response the applicant said that he has since thought about this long and hard and he has been under intense mental and psychological strain and hardship due to his experiences in his home country. He knows what he has done in the past here was wrong and he is sorry for that but he has been through great hardship.  He has been punished for what he did.  The Tribunal noted that in August 2020 at the hearing of his previous BVE application he did not indicate remorse for his past actions, instead saying that what happened was for ‘cultural reasons’ and that his partner had made up the allegations, and this did not sound like he acknowledged wrongdoing on his part.  The applicant agreed that he said that at that hearing.  When asked to clarify then if his contrition now was since that time, he agreed that it was. He said that he has thought about it and knows that it should not be repeated.

26. The applicant confirmed his criminal history as set out in the AAT decision record. He confirmed that when he was arrested in June 2019 and taken into custody, he remained there as he was not granted bail.  When asked why he was not able to get bail he said he was not able to meet the bail conditions. The Tribunal noted that his failure to be granted bail may lead it to have some concerns about his ability to meet visa conditions as it tends to support the conclusion that he will not report and engage with the Department if released. In response the applicant said he has changed since then for the good and his psychologist report and evidence from contacts in the community will confirm that. The Tribunal notes that as at this time, there is no evidence before it from any psychologist or community contacts.  The applicant’s representative interjected, saying that with leave of the Tribunal, they would like time to submit this evidence. 

27. The Tribunal asked the applicant, if released where would he live. He gave an address in [Suburb 1], which he explained was the home of a community member who provides accommodation to homeless members of the community. When pressed for details, the applicant stated this person’s name is [Mr A]. He is [an occupation] and this is his property. The applicant met him when he lived in [Suburb 1] from 2017-2018 and he attended Friday prayers with him.

28. The Tribunal asked what financial support he would have if released. He said his [siblings] in [Country 1] will support him.   The Tribunal noted that there is no evidence before it which supports this or that they have supported him financially in the past.  He indicated he can provide this evidence.

29. The Tribunal asked the applicant what his plan is if his judicial review application is unsuccessful.  He said he will do whatever the law requires him to do. The Tribunal noted that in response to a question at his Detention Client interview in December 2020, he indicated he wished to return home as soon as possible and asked if this was correct. The applicant explained that in detention they are under many pressures and he answered this in that context.  When asked if he has any intention to leave Australia the applicant responded that his children are here. Th Tribunal put to him that the combination of this and his long history in Australia may lead it to be concerned that he has no intentions of leaving and this may mean he will not engage with the Department if granted a bridging visa. It asked him if he wished to say anything more about his intentions to comply with these conditions. 

30. The applicant asked if his representative can argue this point as she can do so more succinctly and convincingly. The Tribunal noted it has read her submissions and wants to hear from him directly.

31. On the issue of whether provision of a security may change the Tribunal’s view on compliance with conditions, the Tribunal noted that he has not suggested any individual is available and willing to provide a security on his behalf. The applicant made no comment.

32. The Tribunal put, under s395AA, the particulars of information contained in the AAT decision case 2012533 regarding his criminal history and information in the NSW Police Fact Sheet about past breaches of bail conditions, and explained the relevance of reliance on this information to the Tribunal finding it is not satisfied he will comply with reporting and conduct conditions. It invited his comments now or he can request additional time to comment.  The applicant requested more time to be able to put his response more thoughtfully. 

33. The Tribunal agreed to allow the applicant additional time to provide a response to the information put under s359AA, together with other supporting evidence referred to during the hearing.  It noted that he would need to agree in writing to an extension of two days for the decision in this matter to be made. The applicant was provided until close of business on 16 February 2021 to provide the information and comments.

34. The representative spoke to her written submissions. She requested further time to provide evidence to support the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal explained that this is a time limited matter and, subject to the applicant agreeing to extend the time by a further two days, it would allow until close of business on 16 February 2021 for her to provide further evidence.

35. At the conclusion of the hearing the applicant appealed to the Tribunal to consider his case humanely, pointing out where he has come from and all that he has been through and that it is unfair to detain him indefinitely after he has served his time for the criminal offences.

36. On 16 February 2021 the Tribunal received further documents in support of the applicant’s review, including :

    ·Support letter from [Mr B], dated 16 February 2021

    ·Support letter from [Mr C] dated 15 February 2021

    ·Undertaking of accommodation and financial support from [Official A], [from a named charity], dated 16 February 2021

    ·Letter from [Mr A], [an official of a named agency] dated 15 February 2021 undertaking to provide the applicant access to accommodation at [the Suburb 1 address] for $140 per week

    ·[Agency 1] Report from [Psychologist A] dated 15 September 2020, Summary of Treatment from [Counsellor A], referring to 4 sessions 4- 24 December 2020 and Summary of Treatment from [Social Worker A] referring to 3 sessions attended 3-125 November 2020.

    ·[Bank 1] statement April – September 2020 belonging to [Mr D].

37. The applicant signed a written agreement to extend the period to decide the application for review to 18 February 2021.

38. No further comments or response relating to the information put to him under s359AA at the hearing was provided.

    FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATION

    The grounds for seeking the visa - cl.050.212

39. At the time of the visa application, the applicant must meet one of the alternatives set out in cl.050.212(2)-(9). The applicant must continue to satisfy this criterion at the time of decision: cl.050.221.

40. In this case, the applicant is seeking to meet cl.050.212(4(a). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the other alternative criteria in cl.050.212. For the reasons below, the applicant meets cl.050.212.

41. Subclause 050.212(4)(a) is met if the applicant has applied for judicial review of a decision in relation to a substantive visa (other than a decision to refuse the visa). The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has applied for judicial review of the decision of the AAT relating to its jurisdiction to review his Protection visa refusal decision [in] December 2020.  Accordingly, the applicant meets cl.050.212(4)(a).

    Whether the applicant continues to satisfy the time of application criteria - cl.050.221

42. Clause 050.221 requires the applicant to continue to satisfy the requirements of cl.050.211 and 050.212 at the time of decision. The applicant told the Tribunal his judicial review matter is still pending and there is no information to contradict this before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal finds that at the time of decision, the applicant continues to satisfy cl.050.211 and 050.212 and therefore meets cl.050.221.

    Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl.050.223

1. Clause 050.223 requires that the Tribunal is satisfied at the time of decision, that if a bridging visa is granted to the applicant, the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on it. Conditions that may be imposed on a Subclass 050 visa are provided for in Division 050.6 and set out in Schedule 8 to the Regulations. Division 050.6 also sets out conditions to which the visa is subject.

2. When considering cl.050.223, the Tribunal must consider which conditions, if any, should be imposed and whether it is satisfied that the applicant would abide by those conditions. In deciding the question of whether the applicant would abide by conditions imposed, the Tribunal is to consider the likely conduct of the applicant. In that context, relevant considerations may include the applicant’s past immigration history, in particular any previous breaches of immigration laws, the significance of the migration laws that were breached, the wilfulness with which those laws had been breached, whether there were any mitigating circumstances justifying their breach and whether the applicant had shown any contrition for their unlawful conduct: Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) (2002) 70 ALD 289 at [15]-[16].

3. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions if security of a particular amount is required, the applicant meets cl.050.223. However, if not satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions, regardless of any security that may be imposed, cl.050.223 is not met.

4. In this case, the conditions to be imposed under the relevant cl.050.6 clause identified by the delegate were discretionary conditions: 8401 (report at specified time and place), 8506 (notify change of address) and 8564 (must not engage in criminal conduct).  The Tribunal finds that cl.050.613A applies to the applicant as he has applied for a protection visa (and is not in a prescribed class of persons) and this clause indicates that condition 8101 (no work) is applicable as a mandatory condition.  The Tribunal finds therefore that the conditions which must and should be imposed in the circumstances of this case are 8101, 8401, 8506 and 8564.  It discussed these conditions with the applicant at the hearing, explaining that compliance with these conditions is the issue in dispute in the review.

5. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s immigration history as disclosed in the documents on the Tribunal file and confirmed by the applicant at the hearing.  On the basis of this evidence it finds that he arrived in Australia in 2010 on a Partner visa. The relationship on which that visa was granted ceased and he entered another partner relationship.  His permanent visa was cancelled in on 29 August 2019, while he was in criminal custody on remand and he did not seek review of that decision. The evidence establishes that, he lived with his partner and children until he was brought into criminal custody and from there transferred to immigration detention.

6. The applicant has a significant and substantial criminal history involving numerous domestic violence charges and convictions in respect of both partner relationships he has had since coming to Australia.  He confirmed at the hearing the account of that history as set out in the AAT Decision Record case 201253 as accurate and gave no further explanation or arguments about it. On this evidence, the Tribunal finds, since coming to Australia, the applicant has engaged in serious criminal conduct in the nature of domestic violence, on multiple occasions and against multiple domestic partners. This history of offending, and particularly the nature of domestic violence assault offences and repeated offending against multiple partners, leads the Tribunal to have serious concerns about whether he will engage in such conduct in future if released on a bridging visa.

7. He has not, until the hearing before this Tribunal, expressed remorse or contrition for his past conduct or behaviour. He acknowledged to the Tribunal that he did not express insight or remorse into his conduct at the hearing before the previous AAT in August 2020, but says that he has now thought long and hard and understands what he has done in the past is wrong.

8. Following the hearing the applicant submitted character letters from several members of the community asserting that he has expressed remorse for past actions and is otherwise of good conduct and character in the community.  The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s oral testimony before it and the content of the support letters provided, but its concerns about his disposition to engage in criminal conduct remain. Firstly, the Tribunal is not convinced that the applicant is genuinely remorseful for his past actions in light of his long and repeated history of offending and lack of contrition or insight demonstrated only several months ago before the previous Tribunal and in other evidence before the Tribunal (such as in the Psychologist report, see below).  His change of heart before the Tribunal on this occasion appears to the Tribunal to be rehearsed and unconvincing and motivated solely by self interest to obtain a visa for release from detention. 

9. In the history provided by the applicant to his psychologist in the [Agency 1] Report of [Psychologist A], dated 15 September 2020, he significantly omits any detail of the domestic violence offending in the context of his past relationships, and the account of his history provided in this report indicates to the Tribunal a stark lack of insight or remorse on his part of his past behaviour, at the time of that assessment in September 2020.  The Tribunal also notes a reference in the report of the social worker, dated 4 December 2020, to the applicant being placed in isolation for having broken a window, suggesting he may still have a propensity towards violence and/or issues relating to anger management.

10. With regard to the character references submitted in support following the hearing, the Tribunal notes that [Mr B] and [Mr C] both indicate they know him for 8 and 4 years respectively and refer to knowledge of his past offence history.  However, it is unclear from the brief content of the letters what detail exactly they know of his past offending nor the basis of their understanding of his remorse.  Neither of these individuals were available to give evidence in support of the applicant at the hearing such that the Tribunal could question them on this.  For this reason the Tribunal gives these character references limited weight in its assessment as to his character and propensity to engage in future criminal conduct or otherwise abide by visa conditions. 

11. The applicant claims if released he will be able to reside at an address in [Suburb 1], [specified] which is owned by a [Mr A] who is known to him.  When asked to explain his association with this person, he told the Tribunal he met him when he lived in [Suburb 1] previously during a period of separation from his wife in 2017-2018, and they attended Friday prayers.  He clarified that he has never previously resided at this address. In a support letter provided following the hearing, [Mr A] states the applicant is known to him for 5 years, attests to his good character and confirms the offer of a room at this address for 6 months at a ‘discounted rate of $140 per week’ to allow him an opportunity to ‘self reflect and work on his character development to become a better father and responsible member of community.’ Having not had the opportunity to ask [Mr A] further questions about the nature of these premises and availability or conditions of the offered room and in the absence of evidence as to how the applicant would be able to pay the rent of $140 per week or what would happen if he did not make those rental payments, the Tribunal is not satisfied there are satisfactory arrangements in place for the applicant’s accommodation and living expenses if he were released from detention.  It also notes that the letter from [Official A] also provided as evidence of an undertaking for accommodation and food assistance, refers to accommodation at a completely different address in [Suburb 2] and also provides little detail about who will provide this support, their financial capacity, and motivations for doing so. The Tribunal gives this letter little weight in its assessment of the applicant’s ability to comply with conditions.   It notes that prior to being remanded into criminal custody he lived with his wife and children, and he has never lived at the [Suburb 1] address he now claims he will live at. 

12. The applicant claimed at the hearing that his [siblings] in [Country 1] will provide him financial support.  However, he has provided no evidence to support this claim.  Neither is there any documentary evidence supporting the claim that his [siblings], or any family member, have provided financial support to him in the past. The Tribunal notes a bank statement relating to an account held by a “[Mr D]” was provided however this was not accompanied by any explanation as to who this person is and the purpose of providing this statement.  On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has access to financial support upon release and therefore it cannot be satisfied that he would not engage in work to support himself in breach of the mandatory work condition.

13. In the absence of suitable accommodation arrangements and access to financial support,  and in light of his long and repeated domestic violence history and lack of convincing demonstration of contrition, insight or remorse,  the Tribunal is not satisfied, that the applicant would abide by conditions relating to work, reporting, notifying address, and not engaging in criminal conduct, if granted a visa.  

14. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledges the evidence of the [Agency 1] reports referring to the applicant showing symptoms of anxiety, depression and PTSD upon psychological testing, consistent with the circumstances of his ongoing and prolonged detention and possible past traumatic experiences in Afghanistan prior to coming to Australia. It accepts that the reports indicate he has reported feelings of loss, sadness, frustration, anger and helplessness as a result of his circumstances of detention and the uncertainty of his visa status, and that he is also grieving the recent death of his mother and [sibling] while he has been incarcerated and in immigration detention.

15. However, notwithstanding his current state of mental health and the difficulties and frustrations he experiences due to his prolonged detention, on the available evidence and for the reasons explained above, the Tribunal is not satisfied at this time that the applicant will abide by the conditions if the visa is granted.

16. The Tribunal has also considered whether it would be satisfied that the applicant would abide by the identified conditions if a security bond is requested. Before the Tribunal the applicant did not mention any person who would be willing or able to provide a financial security to guarantee the applicant’s compliance with conditions.  The Tribunal observes that he was not granted bail, and was remanded in custody, in the context of his criminal proceedings in 2019.  He told the Tribunal the reason for this was because he was not able at that time to comply with bail conditions.  On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant would abide by identified conditions if a security bond is requested, even if a relevant person was identified.

17. For all of the reasons discussed above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by conditions imposed on the visa if granted.  Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.050.223. 

18. For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.

19. The visa application is also an application for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa. The applicant is not a relevant eligible non-citizen as set out in cl.051.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and therefore does not meet the requirements for the grant of that visa.

    DECISION

20. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.

    Meena Sripathy
    Member