2110834 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by an applicant who had an ongoing protection visa application before the Tribunal. The applicant had a criminal conviction and had worked illegally in Australia, wilfully breaching the conditions of a previous visa. The core dispute was whether the applicant would abide by the conditions of a bridging visa if one were granted.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was satisfied, pursuant to clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, that the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa. This required the Tribunal to consider the applicant's likely future conduct, taking into account her past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition. The Tribunal also had to determine which conditions, if any, should be imposed on the visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that to satisfy clause 050.223, it must be convinced of the applicant's future compliance with visa conditions. Relevant factors included past breaches, their wilfulness, and any mitigating factors, as per *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA*. In this instance, the applicant had a criminal conviction and had worked illegally, wilfully breaching her previous visa conditions. The Tribunal considered that a mandatory condition of not engaging in work (condition 8101) should be imposed, along with conditions regarding studies, notifying address changes, and not engaging in criminal conduct. Given the applicant's history of wilful breaches, the Tribunal was not satisfied that she would abide by these conditions, irrespective of any security that might be imposed.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa (Subclass 051).