2212148 (Migration)

The applicant sought review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of his Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had become an unlawful non-citizen in September 2017 and had a history of non-compliance, including a recent conviction for common law assault in July 2022. He also had a de facto wife who was undergoing medical treatment and had applied to vary an apprehended violence order against him. The applicant claimed his previous lawyer failed to address his visa extension, leading to his unlawful status.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the refusal of the Bridging E visa. This involved considering whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, particularly in light of his criminal history, his de facto relationship, and his financial circumstances. The court also had to determine if the Tribunal adequately considered the evidence presented, including medical reports concerning his de facto wife and statutory declarations from her aunt.

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal because the applicant did not satisfy subclause 050.211(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The Tribunal noted the applicant's criminal conviction and the ongoing apprehended violence order proceedings, which raised concerns about his suitability. While the applicant presented evidence of his de facto wife's medical condition and her aunt's offer of financial support and accommodation, the Tribunal found these factors did not outweigh the applicant's history of non-compliance and criminal conduct. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's financial situation, noting he was not permitted to work and was currently in prison, and that his de facto wife's financial capacity was uncertain.

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