2103224 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) by an applicant whose substantive visa application was refused and who had lodged an application for judicial review of that refusal. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of the bridging visa, specifically concerning his past conduct and likelihood of abiding by visa conditions. The decision was made by C. Packer.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant continued to meet the requirements of clauses 050.211 and 050.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, and crucially, whether the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on the bridging visa, as required by clause 050.223. This involved considering the applicant's extensive migration history, including previous visa cancellations, criminal charges, and acquittals, in assessing his likely future conduct.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant satisfied clauses 050.211 and 050.221, as his judicial review proceedings were ongoing and his visa application was valid. In relation to clause 050.223, the Tribunal considered the applicant's past immigration history, including a visa cancellation due to breaching a condition, subsequent applications for ministerial intervention and protection visas, and criminal charges. Despite these past issues, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had been found not guilty of all criminal charges. The Tribunal concluded that, having considered all circumstances and evidence cumulatively, it was satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions imposed on the visa if granted.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant met the criteria under clauses 050.211, 050.221, and 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This meant the Minister was to consider the remaining criteria for the grant of the Bridging E visa.