2304035 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) by an applicant who had previously held a student visa, which was subsequently cancelled. The applicant had also had a Protection visa application refused and had been granted a series of bridging visas. Following his release from criminal custody, he lodged a further application for a Bridging E visa while in immigration detention. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of this visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied any of the criteria set out in subclauses 050.212(2) to (9) of the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether he continued to satisfy such criteria at the time of the decision, as required by clause 050.221. Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was making, or was the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, as stipulated in subclause 050.212(2). The applicant also sought a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa (Subclass 051), and the Tribunal had to determine if he met the eligibility criteria for that visa as well.

The Tribunal reasoned that for the Bridging E visa, the applicant needed to demonstrate acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. While the applicant alluded to a potential future departure after resolving a legal dispute concerning financial loss, he explicitly testified that he was not currently making any arrangements to depart and had no intention of doing so until his legal action was concluded. The Tribunal noted that "acceptable arrangements" is not defined in the Regulations, but guidance from departmental guidelines and case law, such as *Chen v MIMIA* and *Lin v MIMIA*, suggests that the genuineness of intentions in making such arrangements is relevant. The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant was currently making or was the subject of acceptable arrangements to depart, and indeed, his stated intentions contradicted this criterion. Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the definition of a relevant eligible non-citizen for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa.

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