2216032 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by an applicant who had a pending application for a substantive visa. The applicant sought to satisfy criterion 050.212(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires that a valid application for a substantive visa has been made and has not been finally determined. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met this criterion, as departmental records confirmed an outstanding application for a [Subclass 2] visa.

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant would abide by the conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, as required by criterion 050.223. In assessing this, the Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's likely future conduct, taking into account their past immigration history, including any breaches of immigration laws, the significance of those breaches, their wilfulness, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition shown. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had a very long period as an unlawful non-citizen, had worked without rights, and had experienced multiple visa refusals, unsuccessful reviews, and a request for ministerial intervention. Furthermore, the applicant had criminal convictions, served a period of imprisonment, and was subject to immigration detention, while denying responsibility for their offending.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E visa. This outcome was based on the Tribunal's assessment that, despite meeting the criterion relating to a pending substantive visa application, the applicant had not demonstrated they would abide by the conditions of a bridging visa, given their extensive history of non-compliance with immigration laws and their conduct. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa (Subclass 051).