2208417 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in November 2016 and his initial visitor visa ceased in February 2017. He subsequently applied for a protection visa, which was refused, and his review application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was found to be outside its jurisdiction. The applicant had also applied for and been granted several bridging visas since February 2017, with some of these visas being cancelled and subsequently reviewed by the AAT, which also found it lacked jurisdiction. The applicant had a criminal history, including convictions for stalking, intimidation, and common assault, for which he received conditional release orders.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant would abide by the conditions imposed on such a visa, as required by clause 050.223, or if he met the criteria under clause 051.211. The applicant was an unlawful non-citizen and not an 'eligible non-citizen' under clause 050.211, but he had grounds to seek the visa as he had applied to the Minister to exercise powers under section 48B of the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for the visa. While he claimed to have resided at a particular address from the start of 2021, he had not advised the Department of this change in address, despite being granted bridging visas with a condition requiring him to do so. The Department's records indicated a different residential history, and the applicant had also been in criminal detention for a significant period. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's past non-compliance with migration obligations, including his failure to notify the Department of address changes and his criminal history, demonstrated a deliberately wilful approach to his migration responsibilities. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy clause 051.211 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

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