2103843 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa by an applicant who had arrived in Australia in February 2013 and subsequently become an unlawful non-citizen on multiple occasions. The applicant's Temporary Protection Visa application was refused in August 2019, and this decision was upheld on review. Following his release from criminal detention in June 2020, the applicant was again detained and subsequently applied for a Bridging E visa, which was refused by a delegate of the Minister. The applicant then applied for judicial review of the refusal of his Temporary Protection Visa application, which remained ongoing. The Tribunal was asked to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, as required by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant will comply with visa conditions, considering their past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, mitigating circumstances, and any contrition shown. In this case, the Tribunal considered that specific conditions should be imposed, including reporting as directed, notifying Immigration of address changes, and not engaging in criminal conduct.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's history demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with immigration laws, including periods of unlawful presence in Australia. Furthermore, the applicant had been convicted of criminal offences, including common assault and contravening an apprehended violence order, which directly related to the condition of not engaging in criminal conduct. Despite the applicant's claims of not being aware of his unlawful status and his father's role in managing these matters, the Tribunal found that his past conduct indicated a likelihood of future breaches. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the imposed conditions.

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.