2304340 (Migration)

[2023] AATA 982

2304340 (Migration) [2023] AATA 982 (4 April 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:2304340

MEMBER:Gabrielle Cullen

DATE:4 April 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 04 April 2023 at 1:39pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – abiding by visa conditions – periods of unlawful residence – engaging in criminal conduct – applicant convicted of multiple criminal offences – breaches of family violence orders – security bond – renewed contact with child – decision under review affirmed           

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 73, 269, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 050.212, 050.223, 051.211; Schedule 8 Condition 8564

CASES

Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (2002) 70 ALD 289

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s 73 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) and a decision made by an authorised officer relating to requiring a security under s 269 of the Act.

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 21 March 2023. At that time Class WE contained two subclasses: Subclasses 050 and 051. In the present case, the applicant is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 visa, which are set out in Part 050 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). Relevantly to this matter, the primary criteria include cl.050.223 which concerns compliance with visa conditions.

3. The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 24 March 2023 on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied the applicant would meet visa conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa.  

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 April 2023 to give evidence and present arguments.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Background to the review

6. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record.

7. As to the applicant’s immigration history, the evidence in the Department decision records the following:

   ·He arrived in Australia [in] April 2009 on a [student] visa valid to 30 September 2011.

   ·On 19 September 2011 the applicant applied for a further student visa as a dependent on his previous partner’s visa, which was refused by the Department on 15 May 2012 and this decision was affirmed by the  Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) on 30 September 2013. The associated BVA ceased on 6 November 2013.

   ·On 7 November 2013 he became an Unlawful Non-Citizen (UNC) and remained in the community without holding a valid visa until 12 December 2013.

   ·On 13 December 2013 the applicant approached the Department with his previous partner, [Partner A], to regularise his visa status. He informed the delegate at the time he intended to lodge a Partner visa but needed time to organise the lodgement fee. He was granted a Bridging Visa E (BVE) until 19 December 2013.

   ·On 18 December 2013 he lodged a Combined Partner (UK 820/BS 801) visa application and was granted an associated BVE with condition 8101 No Work imposed.

   ·On 18 July 2017 the Combined Partner (UK 820/BS 801) visa application was refused due to a break down in the relationship with [Partner A].

   ·His associated BVE ceased on 15 August 2017 and he became an UNC for the second time  on 16 August 2017 at which time he was in criminal detention.

   ·He remained on a UNC until 17 December 2018 when he was granted a further BVE whilst still in criminal detention.

   ·On 17 October 2018 he lodged a Permanent Protection (XA 866) visa application whilst in criminal detention. This application was decided as invalid by the Delegate.

   ·On 14 December 2018 he lodged a further Permanent Protection (XA 866) visa application from criminal detention and on 18 December 2018 he was  granted an associated BVE.

   ·On 23 August 2019 he lodged an appeal to the Tribunal regarding the decision to refuse his Combined Partner (UK 820/BS 801) visa application. On 10 December 2019 the  Tribunal (differently constituted) decided that his appeal had no jurisdiction.

   ·On 1 February 2019 his Permanent Protection (XA 866) visa application was refused by the Department and the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate’s decision on 28 February 2023.

   ·On 8 February 2023 he lodged a BVE application and this application was refused by the Department on 13 February 2023 because the delegate was not satisfied that he would comply with the BVE conditions as per clause 050.223 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

   ·On 21 March 2023 he again applied for a BVE to which this decision relates.

8. As to the applicant’s criminal record the Department records, as outlined in its decision, the following:

   ·[In] January 2014 he was charged with unlawful assault (2 counts) without conviction and sentenced to a 12 month Community Corrections Order by the [Court 1].

   ·[In] May 2015 he was fined [amount] without conviction for Contravening a Family Violence Interim Intervention by the [Court 2].

   ·[In] December 2016 he was convicted and fined by the [Court 2] for Contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order.

   ·[In] May 2018 he was convicted and sentenced to a total of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years by the [Court 3] for:

   oIntentionally Cause Serious Injury

   oAggravated Burglary

   oContravene Family Violence Intervention Order

   ·[In] October 2018 he was convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment imposed to an existing sentence being served at the time for unlawful assault by the [Court 2].

   ·[In] June 2019 he was convicted for obtaining property by deception and ordered to pay $1000 in fines by the [Court 4].

   ·[In] February 2021 he was convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment imposed to an existing sentence being served at the time for persisting to contravene a family violence order by the [Court 5].

9. With his application for the bridging visa the applicant submitted the following:

   ·He has an ongoing application for ministerial intervention as he missed the opportunity to appeal the refusal for his partner visa as he never received the refusal notification.

   ·He has provided evidence of his relationship with his daughter, [Daughter A] who he has had zoom visits with while in detention and has court orders that she can visit him. He is supporting her mother, [Partner A] financially as much as he can from detention and has phone calls with her.

   ·He has two other daughters with his ex-wife [Partner B], being [Daughter B] (DOB – [specified]) and [Daughter C] (DOB – [specified])

   ·As to offences commented in 2016 causing serious injury and burglary, he notes he made a mistake, has learned his lesson and served his sentence. He submits that he has rehabilitated himself and completed 35 courses while serving time in prison.

10. He also provided:

    ·an email from dated 7 March 2023 from  [Ms A] noting that she will take full responsibility for the applicant financially and with accommodation once the visa is granted. She submits she understands he is in immigration detention and waiting for a  bridging visa. She notes she has known the applicant for the last 10 years and has no hesitation in helping him.

    ·An email from [Partner A] allowing her daughter to have visits with the applicants while he is in prison as she would like him to have a positive relationship with his daughter.

    ·Letter from [Partner A] and his daughter [Daughter A] as to the difficulties encountered as to where they are living and that she is planning to cancel the IVO and asking how they can visit.

    ·Release of Property Authorisation dated 24 Janaury 2023 from the applicant to [Partner A] of a phone with charger, children’s book and $400.

    ·Copies of texts messages between the applicant and [Partner A] as to his daughter requiring money for glasses.

    ·Text messages from [the detention centre] to [Partner A] regarding her request to visit and advice that it is currently being processed.

    ·Agreement between the applicant and [Partner A] dated 17 February 2022 that their daughter, [Daughter A] can visit her father in prison with the nominated persons.

    ·Email from the applicant to the Department noting that once in the community he will visit his daughter under the Child Visit program for [Daughter A] dated [in] Janaury 2022 with her mother consenting to the visit.

    ·Copy of the Family Violence Order dated [in] June 2021 with respect to [Partner A] and his daughter.

    ·Emails from the Victorian Court system noting the Family Violence Order does not need to be altered for the applicant’s’ daughter, [Daughter A], to now visit him in immigration detention as opposed to prison.

11. The delegate in his decision dated 24 March 2023 was not satisfied the applicant would comply with conditions that would be imposed on a Bridging E visa including conditions 8101 (No work) and 8564 (Must Not Engage in Criminal Conduct) . He was also not satisfied that any amount of security would provide the applicant with an incentive to abide by visa conditions.

12. The delegate recorded that, when he interviewed the applicant on 23 March 2023, he told him that his aunt, [Ms A] would support him if he was released into the community with no work rights. As to why he is applying he said he wanted to spend time with his 3 daughters who are all minors. He said he speaks to his 2 oldest daughters from prison but he does not want to see them while he is in prison as they are scared. He said September 2016 was the last time he visited them. As to his youngest daughter, [Daughter A], he said her mother has booked a visit and he is waiting for a time to visit.

13. As to the criminal charges he said he made a mistake and made the wrong choice, has been charged and done his time and is completely rehabilitated. When asked why there are so many charges against him, he said that he did not understand the IVO and has learned his lesson. He said the culture is different in India than in Australia. He said he does not want to make a mistake and end up in prison again. When asked why he breached the family violence orders he said it was not violence, something came up and he had to buy his daughter something and see her.

14. As to why he separated from his first wife, [Partner B], he said they had a small argument, he was not happy and she was angry all the time and after she had depression. He said with the first family violence order he did community work. When the delegate noted he also had family violence orders with his second wife, [Partner A], he said she had post-natal depression and her mother from [interstate] thinks Indian guys use Australian women and she was not happy he was around her daughter. He said his mother-in-law has controlling behaviour and she asked him to move out and she took [Partner A] to the police station to take an IVO against him. He said he is still subject to an IVO for his ex-wife and daughter. He said he was in prison from [June] 2016 to [December] 2022. He said if released he will live with his aunty and she works in a [business] and has property. He said he has $1050 in cash; he has no debts. He said he has no need to work as his aunt will support him.

    Other evidence before the Tribunal

15. On 30 March 2023 the applicant provided the Tribunal with an email from the [Court 6] dated [in] March 2023 noting that he is permitted to see his daughter if he has a written agreement about how and when this occurs. The applicant forwarded this email to the Tribunal referring to an agreement to see his daughter and about his daughter and his other two daughters.

    Hearing on 3 April 2023

16. At the hearing the Tribunal explained to the applicant the requirements of the law, and the conditions it considered should be imposed on Bridging E visa. It explained that if it had concerns as to whether the applicant would comply with visa conditions it would consider the issue of whether a security bond would provide the applicant with an incentive to comply. It also explained that there may be circumstances in which no amount of security would satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant would comply with visa conditions.

17. The following is a summary of the Tribunal evidence.

18. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that there is a s.376 certificate on the Department’s file which it considered is valid. It noted the reason given by the Department for the certificate. The Tribunal asked if there was any comment as to its validity or whether he sought exercise of the discretion. He answered in the negative. The Tribunal, notwithstanding, outlined the gist of the information being that it related to information between the police and Department as to the applicant’s convictions as well as three pieces of correspondence within the Department and to the detention centre relating to internal correspondence. It noted that the internal correspondence between the Department was irrelevant to the criteria being assessed for the grant of the bridging visa. It noted the applicant had already been provided the information as to his criminal  convictions which had been outlined in the Department decision.

19. The Tribunal referred to Condition 8564. It noted that it needed to be satisfied he would not engage in criminal conduct. It discussed with him his criminal convictions as outlined above.

20. As to his conviction [in] January 2014 where he was charged with unlawful assault (2 counts) without conviction and sentenced to a 12-month Community Corrections Order by the [Court 1], he said he had an argument with his ex-wife [Partner B]. He said he explained the circumstances to the Magistrate that he had never harmed anyone in his [life] and was only given the Community Order. He later said he had never committed any domestic violence against [Partner B].

21. As to the conviction [in] May 2015 where he was fined [amount] without conviction for Contravening a Family Violence Interim Intervention by the [Court 2], he said he and his ex-partner [Partner A] had a daughter born in [year] and she had post-natal depression. He said her mother did not like him as he was Indian and she made [Partner A] make him move out, go to the police to make the family violence order and there were no grounds for the family violence order. He said he was not aware of the order and he was living in the same street and wanted his belongings. He said [Partner A’s] sister saw him and reported him for living in the same street and that is why he was fined.

22. As to why [in] December 2016 he was convicted and fined by the [Court 2] for Contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order, he said the first family violence  order had finished and he had not received the paperwork for the further order. He said he was at a local shopping centre and [Partner A] walked in with her daughter.

23. As to whey [in] May 2018 he was convicted and sentenced to a total of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years by the [Court 3] for Intentionally Cause Serious Injury, Aggravated Burglary and Contravening the Family Violence Intervention Order he said it was a big mistake. He said he was at dinner in a restaurant and [Partner A’s] ex-partner called him saying he was going to assault, including sexually, his daughter. He said he went straight to [Partner A’s] home to protect his daughter as in his culture it is the responsibility of the male to protect. He said he was standing on a chair and looking through the window and then his hand touched the window and it broke and the ex-partner, a [Nationality 1], came out and they had a fight. The Tribunal asked why he did not call the police, rather breached the order by going to the house and he said it was a mistake. He said he knew he was not supposed to go to the house because of the family violence order. He said he was not thinking straight. He said he is very sorry, he has now done many courses to help him in prison, he has learned a lot and he cannot afford any more mistakes. It raised with him that he knew of the family violence order yet breached it, contravening the law.

24. As to why [in] October 2018 he was convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment imposed to an existing sentence being served at the time for unlawful assault by the [Court 2]; he said this related to the earlier event in 2016 and he was pressured to do it.

25. As to why [in] June 2019 he was convicted for obtaining property by deception and ordered to pay $1000 in fines by the [Court 4], he said previously while driving a taxi someone stole his license and used it to obtain money. He said he pleaded guilty as there was pressure on him to do so and because of the stress.

26. As to why [in] February 2021 he was convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment imposed to an existing sentence being served at the time for persisting to contravene a family violence order by the [Court 5], he said he was talking to his cousin [overseas] who does not speak English from prison and someone heard him talk about [Partner A] and he was fined. He earlier said this happened in 2018 but later said this was the 2021 incident.

27. The applicant said he has never committed family violence or any domestic violence against [Partner A]. As to why the marriage ceased, he said it was because of family pressure, as her mother was not happy with the relationship. He said he and [Partner A] never had a problem and now she is allowing him to visit their daughter and has gone to court 5 times to change the current family violence order so he can have contact with [Daughter A], his daughter.

28. The Tribunal raised with him via s.359AA and as written in the Department decision that his ex-partner, [Partner A] emailed the Department in 2017 withdrawing her sponsorship from the partner visa application due to a domestic violence incident. He said that is not the case, it was an allegation made by some unknown person and not by his ex-partner, [Partner A].  He said the Family Violence Order happened because of pressure from her family and did not have anything to do with [Partner A].

29. The Tribunal asked if he was saying the family violence orders were unjust and he said then why would [Partner A] now allow their daughter to visit him and maintain contact and why did she ask him to help with his daughter’s birthday if he was a bad person.

30. He confirmed that there was still a family violence order in place but it was altered in 2021 to allow him supervised contact with his daughter which means he is not allowed to directly contact [Partner A] and only can see his daughter when she agrees and organises it. He said he will not make that mistake again and he will have to meet her with his aunty.

31. He confirmed that he knew what a family violence order meant and he was not supposed to go and asked why he did not go to the police in 2016 rather than go straight to the house to confront the [Nationality 1] man. He said it was a big mistake. He said there was never any domestic violence, he is not going to do anything in the future and has leaned from his mistakes.

32. The Tribunal raised that it had significant concerns he would not comply with condition 8564 given his past non-compliance with the law, criminal record and repeated breaches of the family violence orders. It raised with him it had significant concerns that he had a disregard for obeying the law and was concerned he appeared to be minimising and blaming others for his convictions. He said after 2 years his record is clean and he has done many courses in prison and will not make the same mistake.

1. The Tribunal referred to the Condition 8101 – the no work condition and questioned how he would support himself if he could not work and he referred to his aunty, [Ms A]. He said she is not his real aunty, but he has known her for over 10 years as he used to drive her around in his taxi. He said she has a 4-bedroom house where he can live, she will provide him with food and pocket money as well. At the applicant’s request it attempted to call [Ms A] but she did not answer. The Tribunal read to the applicant evidence given by her to the Department which confirms the above and he indicated that was sufficient. He said he would not work if there were no work rights. He said he has approximately $1200 from working in prison. The Tribunal accepts the evidence given by [Ms A] to the Department.

2. When asked if he had anything to add he said he made a big mistake which led to his imprisonment, he is now [age] and has learned his lesson and wants to be given one chance. He said he is not involved in drugs; he has reformed through attending his many courses at prison  and wants to see his daughter. He said [Partner A] has brought his daughter to prison to visit him.

3. As to whether there was any domestic violence with his first wife, [Partner B], he said there was none. He said with [Partner B] he went to Court and was let go and there is no evidence of domestic violence with either [Partner B] or [Partner A].

4. The Tribunal noted he had said to the Department he did not understand the family violence orders but today said he did. He said he knew he should not go there but it was a mistake under pressure as he thought his daughter would be harmed and there was too much pressure.

5. The Tribunal also raised via s.359AA to a report from [his corrections service] indicating he called his sister asking her to speak with his ex- partner in 2020. He said it was his cousin and his cousin only asked about his daughter and she does not speak English, and all they heard was him saying [Partner A].

   Assessment of the evidence

6. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant meets cl.050.212(6) because  [in] June 2021 he submitted a letter requesting the minister to exercise his discretion and that remains ongoing. He therefore meets one of the time of application criteria in cl.050.212 and so the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant will abide by conditions imposed on a bridging visa if one is granted.

   Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl.050.223

7. Clause 050.223 requires that the Tribunal is satisfied at the time of decision, that if a bridging visa is granted to the applicant, he will abide by any conditions imposed on it. Conditions that may be imposed on the visa are provided for in Division 050.6 and set out in Schedule 8 to the Regulations. Division 050.6 also sets out conditions to which the visa is subject.

8. When considering cl.050.223, the Tribunal must consider which conditions, if any, should be imposed and whether it is satisfied that the applicant would abide by those conditions. In deciding the question of whether the applicant would abide by conditions imposed, the Tribunal is to consider the likely conduct of the applicant. In that context, relevant considerations may include the applicant’s past immigration history, in particular any previous breaches of immigration laws, the significance of the migration laws that were breached, the wilfulness with which those laws had been breached, whether there were any mitigating circumstances justifying their breach and whether the applicant had shown any contrition for their unlawful conduct: Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) (2002) 70 ALD 289 at [15]-[16].

9. If the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant will abide by the conditions if security of a particular amount is required, the applicant meets cl.050.223. However, if not satisfied the applicant will comply with the conditions, regardless of any security that may be imposed, cl.050.223 is not met.

10. The question for the Tribunal is whether at the time of this decision it can be satisfied that if granted a bridging visa E he would comply with the conditions.

11. The Tribunal considers that condition 8564 (Must not engage in criminal conduct) should be imposed because of the applicant’s criminal history and because the delegate considered this condition should be imposed.

12. As to condition 8564 (Must not engage in criminal conducti) it is not in contention that the applicant has repeatedly been convicted of crimes in Australia including numerous breaches of family violence intervention orders as outlined above at paragraph 8. The applicant did not dispute this at hearing, although he did as outlined above argue that some of the convictions were unfairly made against him.

13. The applicant has submitted that there are compelling reasons for him to be released from detention, referring to visiting his daughters, particularly [Daughter A], that he has undertaken many courses in prison to reform, realises his mistake, has done his time and repeatedly said that it won’t happen again. He became particularly emotional when referring to his daughter, [Daughter A], the change in orders so she can visit him and that this is his last chance. He repeatedly said he is reformed and that his ex- partner, [Partner A] is now facilitating visits and contact with his daughter.

14. While these matters are relevant, the question for the Tribunal is whether it is satisfied he will not engage in criminal conduct. The Tribunal notes that condition 8564 is not drafted to the effect that the applicant is an acceptable or remote risk of engaging in criminal conduct. The condition is absolute and the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant will not engage in criminal conduct. This requires a high degree of satisfaction.

15. To determine this, the Tribunal is to consider the likely conduct of the applicant and to have regard to the type and significance of the crimes he committed, the wilfulness with which he committed the crimes, any mitigating circumstances and whether the applicant has shown contrition for his conduct.

16. The applicant’s criminal record is extensive and ranges from 2014 to 2021 including numerous breaches of  family violence intervention orders protecting his ex-partner [Partner A] and their daughter, [Daughter A]. The Tribunal is of the view he has attempted to minimise past conduct that has led to the family violence orders and their breach. Despite him repeatedly saying at hearing he never committed domestic violence against his ex-partner [Partner A], there is evidence on file that she ceased sponsoring him for a partner visa because of ongoing domestic violence. He disputed this, saying an unknown person reported this, not [Partner A] and advised that the family violence orders were imposed due to influence from [Partner A’s] mother who did not like him and as [Partner A] had post-natal depression, she was influenced by her mother to go to the police. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting the applicant’s evidence when it contradicts the evidence before the Tribunal that [Partner A] wrote directly to the Department that there was on-going domestic violence in the relationship as reason for withdrawing her sponsorship. It views the applicant’s reasoning as minimising his past conduct.

17. Further, of concern, as raised with him at the Department interview, as outlined in the decision, he said when asked why there were so many breaches of IVOs against him, that he did not understand what an IVO was and why and that was why he pleaded guilty so many times. However, at the Tribunal hearing in contrast he advised he did understand what an IVO or family intervention order was, particularly with regard to the 2016 incident that led him to be convicted for 7 years imprisonment in 2018. The Tribunal views the inconsistency to be significant and evidence that he again attempted to minimise his responsibility, albeit at the Department level.

18. Further with regard to the 2018 convictions that resulted in a sentence for 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years for assault causing serious injury, aggravated burglary and breaching a family violence order in 2016, he claims that [Partner A’s] ex-partner called him and said he would assault, including sexually, his daughter so he went straight to the house, he broke the window when standing on a chair and there was a fight. The Tribunal questioned why he would not call the police rather than breach the family violence order in place when he had previously been convicted of breaching a family violence order. He responded that due to his culture he went to the house to protect his daughter. While the Tribunal does not have the schedule of facts from his trial, that he was convicted for 7 years shows how serious the Court believed the offences to be and undermines his claim as to the provocation. His blatant contravention of the family violence order at the time, when he could of in the alternative called the police is of serious concern to the Tribunal as to any future conduct.

19. With regard to the 2021 conviction for again breaching the family violence order he indicated that he was misadvised to plead guilty as he was about to gain parole and that he was only talking to his cousin about [Partner A]. As raised with him via s.359AA notes from the Department interview indicate information from [the corrections service] state he called his sister asking her to speak to his ex- partner on [a day in] March 2020. He said that was not true, it was his cousin, they were not talking English and in prison as he was coming to parole they try and get you.

20. While the Tribunal accepts he has not  committed a crime by breaching a family violence order since 2021, a period of 2 years, it is concerned this could be as a result of a lack of opportunity as he has been either in prison or detention since and before that time from 2016. While it accepts he has attended numerous courses and has shown some remorse that he made a mistake in 2016, given there is still a family violence intervention order in place protecting [Partner A] and his daughter and given his numerous breaches of the orders in the recent past, the latest in 2021, his minimisation of his behaviour as outlined above, at the time of this decision the Tribunal cannot be satisfied he will not breach condition 8564 – must not engage in criminal conduct if granted the visa. In making this decision it has considered his claim that [Partner A] has been instrumental in his daughter visiting him and having contact with him but notes that the family violence order protecting him from contacting them remains in place.

21. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at this point in time the applicant will abide by this condition imposed on the visa if granted.

22. The Tribunal finds that it is not satisfied he will abide by the condition regardless of any security that may be imposed. In particular it cannot be satisfied he will not engage in criminal conduct thereby breaching condition 8564, particularly as he has repeatedly breached such orders previously.

23. With regard to the no work condition, as the Tribunal is not satisfied, he will abide by condition 8564, it is not required to consider whether he will abide by condition 8101.

24. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by condition 8564 imposed on the visa if granted. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.050.223. For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.

25. The visa application is also an application for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection visa Applicant)) visa. The applicant is not a relevant eligible non-citizen as set out in cl.051.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and therefore does not meet the requirements for the grant of that visa.

    DECISION

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

    Gabrielle Cullen
    Member