2300444 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by an applicant who had been convicted of offences and imprisoned. The applicant sought the visa to remain in Australia while planning to apply for a Partner visa, citing his expired Lebanese passport and concerns about potential harm to himself and his family if he were to obtain new travel documents from the Lebanese government. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Bridging E visa under Schedule 2 of the Regulations, specifically whether he was making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia or met any of the alternative grounds specified in the regulations.

The Tribunal examined the applicant's submissions regarding his inability to obtain a new Lebanese passport due to the requirement to disclose his criminal record, which he argued would place him and his family at risk given the situation in Lebanon. The applicant stated his intention to apply for a Partner visa upon release from detention rather than depart Australia. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not currently making any arrangements to depart Australia and did not meet any of the other specified criteria for a Bridging E visa, including those relating to outstanding requests to the Minister, criminal detention, compelling need to work, or judicial review of a visa refusal. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant qualified for a Subclass 051 Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa but concluded he did not meet the definition of an "eligible non-citizen" for that visa class.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the Bridging E visa application, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the necessary criteria. Despite this outcome, the Tribunal commented on the appropriateness of referring the case to the Minister for intervention under section 195A of the Act, noting the strong compassionate circumstances presented by the applicant's genuine relationship with an Australian resident and her children, and their imminent marriage. While the Tribunal acknowledged it was inappropriate to formally refer the matter due to an existing application under section 195A, it made observations regarding the evident affection between the applicant and the children and suggested further documentation that could support the ministerial application.