2201956 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by an applicant whose immigration history included entering Australia under a false identity in 2007, subsequent detention, voluntary departure, and re-entry in 2011 under a new identity. The applicant had been in immigration detention since December 2019 following the cancellation of a previous Bridging Visa E due to non-compliance with visa conditions, specifically working without permission. This was the applicant's sixth application for a Bridging Visa E.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E visa, specifically whether he continued to satisfy the time of application criteria under clause 050.221 and, crucially, whether he would abide by any conditions imposed on the visa if granted, as per clause 050.223. The Tribunal also considered a separate application for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa (Subclass 051), which the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant did satisfy clause 050.221, as his ongoing judicial review application meant he continued to meet the prerequisite clauses. However, regarding clause 050.223, the Tribunal applied the principles from *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289, considering the applicant's past immigration history, including the wilful breach of immigration laws by working without permission and using a false identity. The Tribunal concluded that, based on this history, it was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions of a granted bridging visa.

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