2208538 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by an applicant who had remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen after her visitor visa expired. The applicant had previously applied for a Protection visa, which was refused, and a subsequent review application to the Tribunal was dismissed for being out of time. The applicant was subsequently convicted of cannabis cultivation offences, served a period of imprisonment, and was then transferred to immigration detention. The Tribunal was asked to review the refusal of her Bridging E visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, as required by subclause 050.212(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This required the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to depart Australia and would comply with any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, should one be granted. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, which she did not.

The Tribunal reasoned that for arrangements to depart to be considered "acceptable," they must be genuine. While the applicant had provided a flight reservation and a copy of her passport biodata page, and later an email with a receipt from the Consulate General of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Tribunal found the evidence unreliable. The flight reservation was for a date in the past, and the receipt from the Vietnamese Consulate was incomplete and contained handwritten alterations that obscured key details such as the amount paid and the collection date. Furthermore, the applicant had previously worked unlawfully in Australia and had a criminal history, which raised concerns about her willingness to abide by visa conditions. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine intention to depart Australia or that she was making acceptable arrangements to do so.

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