2104322 (Migration)

2104322 (Migration) [2021] AATA 2182 (14 April 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2104322
MEMBER:Amanda Mendes Da Costa
DATE:14 April 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
Statement made on 14 April 2021 at 12.54pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – unlawful Non-Citizen – wilfully acting in breach of the conditions of visa – non-compliance with Australia’s migration laws – work unlawfully for a long period – not satisfied that applicant would abide by conditions imposed on a bridging visa if granted to him – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 73, 116, 235
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.20, Schedule 2, cls 050.211, 050.212, 050.223, 050.613A, 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

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).
The applicant applied for the visa on 30 March 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.050.212 which provides 17 separate criteria, each of which provides a ground for the grant of a Subclass 050 visa. The primary criteria for the grant of a Subclass 051 visa include cl.051.211 which provides five separate criteria, each of which provides a ground for the grant of the Subclass 051 visa.
The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 6 April 2021 on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met any of the criteria in cl.050.212 or in cl.050.211 for the grant of a Subclass 050 or Subclass 051 visa respectively.
The Tribunal notes that on 30 March 2021 the applicant applied for a Subclass 866 permanent protection visa. The application is yet to be determined by the Department.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 April 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review and his representative participated in the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issues the Tribunal have to decide are:
·Whether the applicant is eligible to be granted a Bridging E visa.
·If the applicant is eligible to be granted a Bridging E visa, what conditions should be attached to the visa.
Applicant’s Migration History
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] May 2013 as the holder of a Student [visa] which was due to expire on 30 May 2015. On 1 July 2013 the Department was advised that the applicant had not commenced his course of study and on 22 July 2013 it was further advised that the applicant’s education provider had cancelled his enrolment.
On 3 March 2014 the Department cancelled the applicant’s student visa under s.116(1)(b) of the Act. On that date the applicant became an unlawful non-citizen and continued to reside in the community until [date] March 2021 when he was located by Victoria Police and detained under s189(1) of the Act and transferred to an immigration detention facility in Melbourne.
Reasons for the Delegate’s decision
The delegate of the Minister in her decision to refuse the applicant a Bridging E visa found that she was not satisfied that the applicant would comply with the conditions imposed on the visa. This was based on the following:
·the applicant’s migration history;
·the applicant’s failure to comply with the conditions of his Student visa;
·the length of time (seven years) the applicant remained residing in the community as an unlawful non-citizen after his student visa was cancelled in March 2014;
·the applicant’s failure to contact the Department and make an attempt to regularise his migration status;
·the applicant worked ‘illegally’ in the community from the cancellation of his visa in March 2014 until he was located by Victoria Police in March 2021; and
·the fact that the applicant is a ‘person of interest’ to Victoria Police on multiple occasions prior to being located on [date] March 2021.
Whether the applicant will abide by conditions – cl.050.223
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 in 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.
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 his/her unlawful conduct: Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) (2202) 70 ALD 289 at [15]-[16].
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions if security of a particular amount is required, the applicant meets 050.223. However, if the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions, regardless of any security that may be imposed, cl.050.223 is not met.
In this case, cl.050.613A applies because the applicant has made a valid application for a protection visa which has not been finally determined. This clause prescribes that, in addition to any mandatory conditions, certain conditions may be imposed. The Tribunal considers that conditions 8207, 8401 and 8506 and 8564 are relevant to the applicant.
The Tribunal also explained to the applicant that condition [8101: The visa holder must not engage in work in Australia] is a mandatory condition place on the visa.
The Tribunal further informed the applicant:
·the Tribunal was reviewing the decision by the delegate of the Minister to refuse his application for a Bridging E visa;
·the delegate of the Minister had raised a concern that the applicant would not comply with the discretionary conditions 8207, 8401, 8506 and 8564, such that consideration of these conditions is an issue before the Tribunal, if the Tribunal considers the imposition of such conditions necessary;
·the Tribunal was satisfied the applicant had made a valid application for a Bridging E visa as he had made an application for a substantive visa that can be granted in Australia, being a protection visa, and that application had not yet been decided, which meets the requirements of cl.050.212(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and
·the Tribunal would consider whether the applicant would comply with any conditions the Tribunal considers reasonable to impose if the applicant were granted a Bridging E visa.
The applicant indicated that he understood the above matters as outlined to him, including the conditions which he would abide with if granted the visa.
The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant and Ms [A] together with submissions by the applicant’s representative.
Applicant’s oral evidence
The applicant is a single man with no children. He is a national of Vietnam whose family lives in that country. The applicant has no relatives in Australia.
The applicant told the Tribunal that that he had arrived in Australia in May 2013 as the holder of a student visa and was enrolled to undertake a three-year course of study [at] [University 1]. The applicant spent approximately one week in Adelaide before travelling to Melbourne to visit friends. The applicant explained that his migration agent in Vietnam had advised him that as his course was not due to commence until October 2013 the applicant was permitted to stay in Melbourne until October.
The applicant’s migration agent did not provide the applicant with any documentation regarding his course of studies and the applicant did not contact the University prior to leaving Adelaide and travelling to Melbourne.
The migration agent did not contact the applicant again. The applicant returned to Adelaide in October 2013 where he attempted to telephone the agent on many occasions. Despite leaving messages, the agent did not return his calls. The applicant’s family in Vietnam were also unable to contact the agent as they live in a regional province and the agent lives in a city. The agent sent staff to the province to arrange the visa applications for clients (including the applicant) and even they were unable to contact the agent.
In November 2013 (and after making several attempts to contact the agent) the applicant made enquiries at [University 1] where he was informed by staff that his enrolment had been cancelled due to his non-attendance at classes. The staff further informed him that the University had refunded 95% of his fees. Unfortunately, the applicant did not receive any of these monies and he assumed that the money had been paid to his agent who had retained the monies for his own benefit.
The applicant explained that he was unable to re-enrol in his [course] as his English was poor and he didn’t know how to contact the Department.
Given the applicant had no friends in Adelaide, in November 2013 he decided to return to Melbourne where he had friends to support him. The applicant has lived in Melbourne since that date.
The applicant was aware that his parents had spent a great deal of money on securing a Student visa for him, paying his university fees and funding his travel to Australia.
The applicant has lived in various rental properties in Melbourne since November 2013. For the first few years he stayed with friends and paid no rent. He subsequently moved to another property where he shared the property with a number of people and paid rent. When detained by police in March 2021 the applicant was renting a property in [Suburb 1] with friends. His belongings remain in this property and the applicant is able to return there if his bridging visa is granted.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about how he had supported himself financially whilst living in Australia. The applicant explained that was initially supported by a friend but has been working since 2015. For three years he was employed by another Vietnamese man who operated a [business]. This employment ceased in 2018 and the applicant did not work after this due to the Covid-19 pandemic. When the Tribunal observed that the government restrictions imposed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic were not implemented until late March 2020, the applicant said that he had been employed in 2019 in another similar business. However, this employment was not as frequent as his earlier job and he only worked when called upon.
In 2020 the applicant received financial assistance from his friends and family as he was not working due to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and government restrictions of the work force.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not receive any notification from the Department either that it was considering cancellation of his visa or had in fact cancelled his visa. The Tribunal observed that even if the applicant had not been aware of the cancellation of his visa, he would have been aware that his visa was otherwise due to expire on 30 May 2015. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the reason for his failure to approach the Department before this date to discuss his migration status. The applicant said that he had no idea when his visa was due to expire and, in any event, did not have enough money to engage a migration agent to assist him and lacked the knowledge to contact the Department. His friends were all Vietnamese students and did not know how to contact the Department as they all used their migration agents to assist them with contact with the Department.
The Tribunal further questioned the applicant about the circumstances in which Victoria Police executed a search warrant at his home on [date] March 2021. The applicant explained that whilst the police may have informed him about the reason for the search, he did not understand their explanation. They wanted to interview him about the cultivation of cannabis but after asking him a couple of questions had told him that they were satisfied he had no involvement in that crime.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he had never been charged or found guilty of any criminal offences and had never committed any criminal offences in Australia. He assured the Tribunal that he would comply with any bridging visa conditions imposed by the Tribunal, including Conditions 8101, 8207, 8401, 8506 and 8564.
The applicant expressed remorse for his behaviour in remaining and working in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen. When questioned by the Tribunal about what would be different about his behaviour if he was granted a bridging visa, the applicant explained that his friends were “prepared to pay a bond” to secure his compliance with visa conditions. The monies for this bond had been deposited into his bank account by seven to eight of his friends. The applicant said that he was very sorry for his previous behaviour because in the past he had wanted to contact the Department about his migration status but was unable to do this. If the Bridging E visa was granted, he would return to live at his rental property in [Suburb 1]. His friends (Ms [A] and [Mr B]) would initially provide him with financial support until his current migration agent applied to the Department on his behalf for a visa condition permitting him to work in Australia. The applicant anticipated that his friends would support him for a couple of months until he was able to work.
The Tribunal also discussed with the applicant, the grounds for his protection application. The applicant explained that in 2016, there had been an industrial accident which had damaged the environment in the province where his family lived. His father had participated in a demonstration against the company which was involved in the incident and he had shared some of the video of the incident and demonstration on [social media]. The applicant’s father had been interviewed on several occasions by the police about his involvement in the demonstration and both the applicant and his father had been sent letters inviting them to interviews with the police. The applicant’s father was still receiving letters from the police about the matter in 2020. When questioned by the Tribunal about his reason for failing to make an application for a protection visa until after he was detained by police and placed in immigration detention, the applicant said that he was not in a financial position to engage a migration agent and that he had borrowed money from friends to engage his current migration agent.
The applicant complained about the lack of medical treatment received in immigration detention and assured the Tribunal that if he was granted a bridging visa, he would abide by any conditions imposed by the Tribunal.
Oral evidence of [A]
Ms [A] adopted the contents of her statutory declaration. She told the Tribunal that she was prepared to provide the applicant with accommodation and that she and her husband had offered the applicant a room in their home. They were also prepared to provide food and other personal necessities for the applicant, who could live with them for up to two years.
Documentation
Prior to the hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with statutory declarations by [Ms A] and [Mr B] together with a statement from the applicant’s bank account for the period 1 January to 1 April 2021. These documents were previously provided to the Department.
Statutory declaration of [A] dated 22 March 2021
Ms [A] has been a friend of the applicant for several years and is aware that he is currently in immigration detention. Ms [A] is employed as [an occupation] and if the applicant is granted a Bridging visa, is willing to assist him whenever he needs money to pay for his daily expenses or pay for his rent.
Statutory declaration of [Mr B] dated 22 March 2021
[Mr B] (who is a friend of the applicant) is aware that he is currently in immigration detention. In his declaration, [Mr B] acknowledges that the applicant will require financial support if he returns to live in the community. [Mr B] is prepared to provide financial support to the applicant, whenever needed, including food, transport and for personal needs.
[Mr B] also indicates that he has provided a copy of his bank statement which indicates his financial capacity to support the applicant.
Copy of the applicant’s bank statement
The statement provided by the applicant is for [a] bank account in the name of the applicant, for the period 1 January to 1 April 2021. It shows that as at 1 January 2021 the account balance was $151.03. On 24 March 2021 the sum of $4,000 was deposited into the account by Mr [B]. On 25 March 2021 the further sums of $3000 and $2,000 were deposited into the account by [a named person] and [another named person] respectively
Applicant’s submissions
The submissions made by the applicant’s migration agent on his behalf included the following:
·The applicant had the financial and emotional support of his friends. Their recent willingness to deposit funds (approximately $9,000) into his bank for a security bond, would secure the applicant’s compliance with any visa conditions.
·When the applicant arrived in Australia, he accepted the advice of his then migration agent who did pass onto the enrolment fees refunded to the applicant by [University 1], after the cancellation of his enrolment.
·The applicant made a foolish decision to remain in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen because he was aware that his parents had spent a significant amount of money on his visa, studies and travel.
·The applicant did not see an immediate need to lodge a protection visa until after he was detained in March 2021.
·The applicant had not been charged with nor committed any criminal offence.
·Although the applicant admitted he had worked in Australia without permission, he did not consider this to be a serious offence.
·Although Ms [A] had suggested in her evidence that the applicant could live with her and her family, this would only be an option for the applicant if he was not granted the right to work in Australia. He intended to return to live in his rental property in [Suburb 1], unless he was unable to work and then he would consider living with Ms [A] and her family.
Is the applicant eligible to be granted a Bridging E visa?
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.
Substantive visa application

Subclause 050.212(3) is met, if the applicant has made, in Australia, a valid application for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the applicant is in Australia and that application has not been finally determined, or the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would apply for such a visa within a period specified for doing so.
‘Substantive visa’ in this context means a visa other than a bridging visa, criminal justice visa or enforcement visa: s.5(1) of the Act. An application is ‘finally determined’ when it is no longer subject to merits review under Part 5 or Part 7 of the Act, or any prescribed period within which a merits review application must be submitted has passed without application being made: s.5(9) of the Act.
In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant made an application for a Subclass 866 protection visa on 30 March 2021. Accordingly, the applicant meets cl.050.212(3).
Whether the applicant continues to satisfy the time of application criteria – cl.050.221
An applicant for a Bridging E visa must, at the time of application, satisfy cl.050.211 and cl.050.212. The Tribunal has already stated it is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of cl.050.212.
The Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant satisfies the requirements of cl.050.211 because at the time of application, the applicant:
·Was an unlawful non-citizen as required by cl.050.211(1)(a); and
·Was not an eligible non-citizen of the kind set out in r.2.20(7), (8), (9), (10, (11) or (17) as required by cl.050.211(2).
Clause 050.221 requires that an applicant for a Bridging E visa must continue to satisfy the criteria set out in cl.050.211 and cl.050.212 at the time of the Tribunal’s decision.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant continues to satisfy the requirements of both clauses at the time of this decision as the applicant remains an unlawful non-citizen who is detained by the Department, he is not an eligible non-citizen in the relevant sense and his application for a substantive visa able to be granted in Australia, in this case a Subclass 866 protection visa, remains on foot.
The issue in this case therefore is will the applicant comply with any conditions that would be imposed on any bridging visa which may be granted to him.
Condition 8101 – Must not work
Although [Mr B] and Ms [A] are prepared to provide financial support to the applicant if his visa is granted, given that the applicant worked in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen after his Student visa was cancelled for several years, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will comply with this condition.
Condition 8207 – Must not study
Given that the applicant has not undertaken any study in Australia whilst residing in the community (eight years), the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant will comply with this condition.
Condition 8401 – Must report as directed
Given the applicant’s migration history, his failure to comply with the conditions of his Student visa and the length of time he resided in the community as an unlawful non-citizen (seven years) the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will comply with this condition.
Condition 8506 – Must notify change of address
Given the applicant’s poor compliance history, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will comply with this condition.
Condition 8564 - Must not engage in criminal conduct
Although Victoria Police executed a warrant in respect of the applicant and described him to the Department as ‘person of interest’, the Tribunal notes that there is no evidence that the applicant has been charged with or found guilty of any criminal offence whilst residing in the community. The applicant in his oral evidence also denied any criminal offending behaviour on his part. However, given the applicant worked for several years whilst an unlawful non-citizen, an offence under s.235 of the Act, carrying significant penalties, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will comply with a condition that he not engage in criminal conduct if the visa is granted.
Provision of Security
The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant’s bank account statement provided to the Tribunal, indicates that the applicant is in a financial position to provide a security if required. This is supported by the oral evidence of the applicant. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is in a position to provide a security, it is not satisfied in any event that the provision of security would secure the applicant’s compliance with conditions. This finding is based on the evidence before the Tribunal including evidence regarding the applicant’s history of poor compliance with the conditions of his Student visa, the length of time he resided in the community after his Student visa was cancelled, the length of time he worked in the community, and his failure to contact the Department to regularise his migration status until after he was located and detained by Victoria Police.
Findings
On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant demonstrated a disregard for abiding by immigration requirements and law regarding his status in Australia; his commitments to undertake and complete a course of study; and to not work unlawfully. The Tribunal notes that the applicant remained unlawfully in the community for some seven years until he was located and detained [in] March 2021.
The Tribunal is concerned that despite being unlawful for a considerable period of time, the applicant took no steps to make arrangements to leave Australia or to regularise his visa status until being detained. The applicant said that he wanted to get out of detention and that he would abide by any conditions place on the visa. The Tribunal noted that this was the issue under consideration and that the Tribunal needed to be satisfied that the applicant would comply with the conditions imposed on the visa under review.
On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was unlawful in Australia for seven years following the cancellation of his Student visa in March 2014. The Tribunal finds that the applicant knowingly worked unlawfully for a significant portion of that time. The Tribunal finds that at no time did the applicant approach Home Affairs and seek to regularise his migration status prior to being located by Victoria in March 2021. The Tribunal finds that the applicant only applied for a protection visa on 30 March 2021 subsequent to being detained. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s rationale for this behaviour – that his parents expended a significant sum of money to fund his studies in Australia and that he claims to fear returning to Vietnam because his father was involved in protests against environmental pollution and he publicized this, provides no credible rationale for his failure to apply for a protection visa prior to March 2021 and hence to regularise his migration status. The Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s claims for protection to be credible given that his father has only been interviewed by police (albeit on more than one occasion) and the applicant has been invited for one interview. His account of the reasons for his protection application did not include any evidence that he was fearful for his own safety if he returned to Vietnam and despite being involved in a protest five years ago, the applicant’s father remains living in the community and had not been detained by the authorities in Vietnam.
Were the Tribunal to accept that the applicant has a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution on return to Vietnam, due to his concerns about his father’s involvement in protests and his own publicizing of this on [social media], it follows that the applicant could have approached the Department at any time prior to either the cancellation of his visa or the expiry date of the visa (30 May 2015) or at any time thereafter, explained his situation and circumstances, including any genuine or perceived fear of returning to Vietnam, and made a valid application for a protection visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father’s involvement or that of the applicant in protests in Vietnam provides a credible rationale for his failure to take steps to regularise his migration status in Australia. Nor does the Tribunal accept as either credible or convincing the applicant’s evidence that he had insufficient command of the English language or a lack of understanding about how he could contact the Department to discuss his concerns about returning to Vietnam.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant has stated that he would abide by conditions imposed on the visa under review. However, the Tribunal considers the previous breaches of immigration law made knowingly by the applicant to be significant and serious, and that the applicant’s explanation and reasons for his past conduct do not justify those same actions. The applicant worked whilst an unlawful citizen, an offence under s.235 of the Act, carrying significant penalties. He became unlawful and remained unlawful for seven years until he was located by Victoria Police and detained by the Department. The responsibility for abiding by visa conditions rests with the individual visa holder. Whilst the applicant has expressed remorse for his actions to both Departmental staff and the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the breaches of immigration law, without adequate explanation, to be material to the consideration of whether the applicant will abide by conditions imposed.
Further, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has breached immigration requirements and remained unlawfully in the community, indicating a disregard for immigration laws. Even taking into account his explanations, the Tribunal has no confidence that he would now comply with the conditions imposed on the visa. Specifically, the Tribunal finds that there is a very strong chance that the applicant would seek to again remain in Australia unlawfully, and hence, would not report regularly to the Department, as required.
The Tribunal does not accept as either credible or convincing the applicant’s explanation for his failure to attend [University 1] for any of his studies. The Tribunal considers that if he had genuinely wished to commence his studies in Adelaide, he would have approached the University in May 2013 (on his initial visit) to discuss his enrolment, course materials and commencement date. The Tribunal does not accept that he has been entirely forthright or candid about his reasons for travelling to Australia; his reasons for not commencing his studies and subsequently overstaying his substantive visa; his periods of work; and his reasons for not wanting to return to Vietnam. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s reason for remaining in Australia without a valid visa was to engage in work, rather than a genuine wish to undertake and complete a course of study. The Tribunal further does not accept as either credible or convincing, the applicant’s claim that he had no idea of the length of Student visa, nor that he was unable to make attempts to contact the Department about the cancellation of his enrolment due to his poor English or lack of understanding about visa matters. The Tribunal considers that the applicant had the capacity to make enquiries about contact details for the Department and that his failure to contact the Department was motivated by his desire to stay and work in Australia.
Although the applicant claimed that he was unaware that the Department had cancelled his Student visa, the Tribunal is satisfied that he was aware that the conditions of his visa required him to be enrolled and undertaking a course of study in Australia and that from at least November 2013 he was aware that his enrolment had been cancelled. Despite this knowledge, he remained in Australia.
Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant had expressed remorse for his actions, given the length of time the applicant remained in the community as an unlawful non-citizen, his work history in Australia and his failure to approach the Department to regularise his migration status over several years, on the evidence before it, 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.
For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General))visa.
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.050.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and therefore does not meet the requirements for the grant of that visa.
For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
Amanda Mendes Da Costa
Member

[2021] AATA 2182

14 April 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice