2103639 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa by a non-citizen who had a history of prolonged periods as an unlawful non-citizen in Australia. The applicant first arrived in August 2012 on a tourist visa which expired in November 2012. He remained in Australia unlawfully until June 2015, when he was detained and voluntarily removed in July 2015. In November 2015, he re-entered Australia using a visitor visa granted under a different identity, purportedly belonging to his brother. This visa expired in February 2016, and he remained in Australia unlawfully until his detention in January 2021. During this period of unlawful status, he had applied for a protection visa and a bridging visa, the latter of which had been refused and that refusal affirmed by the Tribunal. The current application for a Bridging E visa was made in March 2021.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, specifically clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires the applicant to satisfy the Minister that they have made arrangements for their departure from Australia or have applied for a substantive visa. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's history of non-compliance with migration laws, including his periods of unlawful status, his use of a false identity to re-enter Australia, his admission of working without rights, and his failure to notify the department of changes of address.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to satisfy clause 050.223. The applicant had not demonstrated that he had made arrangements for his departure from Australia, nor had he been granted a substantive visa. His protection visa application was still pending, and a previous bridging visa application had been refused. The Tribunal noted the applicant's prolonged periods as an unlawful non-citizen, his admission of working part-time despite lacking work rights, and his failure to notify the department of his address. These factors, coupled with the applicant's use of a false identity to re-enter Australia and his stated reasons for doing so (to escape loan sharks), weighed against the grant of the visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of clause 050.223.

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