2306617 (Migration)

[2023] AATA 1694

2306617 (Migration) [2023] AATA 1694 (23 May 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2306617

MEMBER:C. Packer

DATE:23 May 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa:

·cl 050.212(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

·cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 23 May 2023 at 1.39pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – abiding by visa conditions – period of unlawful residence – applicant convicted of several criminal offences – reconciliation with family – detention completed – reporting conditions – decision under review remitted         

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 73, 189
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 050.211, 050.212, 050.221, 050.223, 050.617; Schedule 8

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).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 3 May 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 included cl 050.223.

3. The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 11 May 2023 on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the visa applicant will comply with the conditions imposed on the visa if the visa was granted.

4. The applicant appeared by video before the Tribunal on 22 May 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence by video from [Ms A]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tonga and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, FINDINGS

   Migration history

7. The applicant’s migration history set out in the delegate’s decision (provided by the applicant to the Tribunal) includes the following:

   You made your first arrival into Australia [in] December 2017 as the holder of a Tourist (Class FA) (Subclass 600) visa with a lawful until date of 08 May 2018. You then departed Australia [in] January 2018 and made your final entry into Australia [in] March 2018. Your tourist (Class FA) (Subclass 600) visa ceased naturally on the 08 May 2018 and following this cessation, you became an Unlawful Non-Citizen (UNC).

   On the 03 September 2020, you lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass
   866) visa and was subsequently granted a Bridging (Class WC) (Subclass 030) C visa (BVC)
   in association with this application.

   Departmental records indicate that you were remanded into criminal custody [in]
   February 2021 for charges of Aggravated Enter Dwelling W/I Inflict ABH-SI. You were
   released on bail for this offence on [a day in] July 2021 following your agreement to forfeit $500.00 if you fail to appear before a court.

   Further Departmental records indicate that on [a day in] March 2021, you were charged with the following offence:
   - Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV). You were sentenced to a six (6) month
   Community Corrections Order commencing on [that day in] March 2021 and concluding on [a day in] September 2021. You were also given an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) as a result of this offence which commenced on [a day in] February 2021 and concluded on [a day in] March 2023.

   You were then released from criminal custody on the [day in] July 2021 and at the time of your release, you were holding a BVC.

   On [that day in] March 2021, your application for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa was refused. On the 05 May 2021, your BVC ceased naturally and following this cessation, you once again became an UNC.

   On the 12 July 2021, you lodged an online application for a Bridging (Class WE) (Subclass
   050) visa (BVE). This application was refused on the 05 May 2023.

   On the 22 July 2021, you lodged a review of the refusal of your Protection (Class XA)
   (Subclass 866) visa with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This resulted in a decision of
   No Jurisdiction due to timeframes not being met on the 03 June 2022.

   Departmental records indicate that on [a day in] February 2022, you were charged with the following offences:
   - Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm T2. You were sentenced to an 18 month
   Intensive Corrections Order commencing on [that day in] February 2022 and will conclude on [a day in] August 2023.
   - Enter Building/Land w/i Commit Indictable Offence T-1. You were sentenced to a 4
   month and 3 week term on imprisonment that was served that commenced from [a day in] February 2021 and concluded on [a day in] July 2021.

   You have indicated that as a result of these offences, you were also given an 18 month
   Apprehended Violence Order.

   Departmental records indicate that on [a day in] April 2023, you were charged in absentia with the following offence:
   - Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domest) T2. You are due to appear in
   court for this offence on [a day in] June 2023.

   Departmental records indicate that [in] April 2023, you were detained by the Australian Border Forcer under s189 of the Migration Act and transferred to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre where you currently reside.

   On the 02 May 2023 whilst in Immigration detention, you lodged an application for a
   Combined Partner (Class UK/BS) (Subclass 820/801) visa. As a result of this application, you
   were also taken to have made an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) (Subclass 050) visa.

   The Detention Review Officer was informed about the lodgement of this application on the 10
   May 2023 as required under item 1305(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations. It is this BE application that is currently under assessment.

8. On 1 May 2023 the applicant was interviewed by a Status Resolution officer. Notes of the interview and the applicant’s responses are set out in the delegate’s decision, and include the following:

   It is noted that you have been convicted of several offences, each attracting a different
   sentence. These offences include:
   - [March] 2021 – Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV). You were sentenced to
   a six (6) month Community Corrections Order commencing on [a day in] March 2021 and concluded [in] September 2021 as a result of this offence.
   - [February] 2022 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm T2. You were sentenced
   to an 18 month Intensive Corrections order commencing on [that day in] February 2022 and is set to conclude [in] August 2023.
   - [February] 2022 - Enter Building/Land w/i Commit Indictable Offence T-1. You were
   sentenced to a four (4) month and three (3) week term on imprisonment that was served
   that commenced from [a day in] February 2021 and concluded on [a day in] July 2021.

   You have stated during your telephone interview with a Status Resolution Officer on the 01
   May 2023 that you have a pending charge of Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm
   (domestic) T2 and that you have a court date set for the [day in] June 2023. You have also stated that you have had three Apprehended Violence Orders taken out against you. You have stated that one of these AVOs is in relation to your partner and this occurred due to a disagreement you had over family matters. You stated that you did not remember when this AVO expired.

   You have stated that you have a further AVO against your sister-in-law. You stated that you
   are aware that this AVO is still active but you are unsure of when this expires.

   When questioned about the offence of Destroy or Damage property <=$2000 (DV), you stated
   that you do not remember this offence occurring. This is despite you providing the
   Department with evidence of your offending in the form of a National Police Certificate from
   the Australian Federal Police as well as evidence of your Community Corrections Order from
   the [Court 1].

   In relation to the offences of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm T2 and Enter
   Building/Land w/i Commit Indictable Offence T-1, you stated that this offence occurred after you arrived at a relative’s house intoxicated and that you assaulted a friend who you found
   together with your mother in a room. You stated that the reason you committed this offence
   was that you felt angry at the situation. Following the assault, your relative notified the police
   and you avoided the police by driving to your mother’s house in [Suburb 1]. However, you stated that you were met by the police upon arrival to your mother’s house. You stated that you were given an 18 month AVO in relation to this offence, however, you have mended your relationship with everyone involved in this incident. You have stated that you feel remorse and regret for your actions and while you were ordered to attend a court mandated anger management and drug and alcohol testing and courses, you did not attend these course as you did not have the funds. Instead, you attended a course run by your local church.

   You have stated that you have a pending charge of Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc
   harm (domestic) T2 and that you are due to appear in court [in] June 2023. When
   questioned about this offence, you stated that you were arguing with your sister-in-law who
   was intoxicated. The police were then called and you were interviewed. You stated that you
   have bail conditions that require you to report to the police three times a week in relation to
   this offence. You stated that you have apologised to your sister-in-law and that she will be supporting you in court.

9. A National Police Certificate dated [in] April 2022 shows court outcomes concerning the applicant, all at [Court 1] on the following dates:

   ·[March] 2021 – Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV)-T2. Court result: Community Corrections Order 6 months commencing [that day] concluding [in September] 2021

   ·[February] 2022 - Enter Building/Land w/i Commit Indictable Offence T1. Court result: Imprisonment: 4 months and 3 weeks commencing [in February] 2021 concluding [in July] 2021

   ·[February] 2022 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm T2. Court result: Intensive Corrections order commencing [in February] 2022 concluding [in August[ 2023. Report to community corrections at [a location] by midday [on a day in February] 2022. Defendant is to submit to random drug and alcohol testing by community corrections. Defendant is to attend anger management counselling. Supervision: 18 months commencing [February] 2022 concluding [in August] 2023 supervised by community corrections service abstention. 18 months commencing [in February] 2022 concluding [in August] 2023 type: alcohol and drugs, not to consume alcohol or illicit drugs

10. A Court Attendance notice shows while on bail, the applicant is listed before [Court 2] on [a day in June] 2023. Details of offence:

    Stalk or intimidate intending to cause fear of physical or mental harm (domestic violence offence) between 4:00am and 4:36am on [a day in March] 2023 at [Suburb 2] did intimidate [Ms B] with the intention of causing the said [Ms B] to fear physical or mental harm

11. A NSW Police Fact Sheet sets out the facts of the charge, and shows (in summary) the applicant threatened [Ms B]:

    … and stated “I’ll fucking shoot you and your family”, before launching himself towards the victim; getting to within about a metre of her. Other family members still present at the location pulled the accused away from the victim before he was able to make physical contact with the victim.  …

12. A NSW Police Criminal history Bail report shows in part:

    Charged [in January] 2021 with Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV)-T2. Sentenced [in March] 2021.

    Charged [in February] 2021 with Enter Building/Land w/i Commit Indictable Offence T1: and Assault occasioning actual bodily harm T2. Sentenced on both [in February] 2022.

    [April] 2023 [Court 2]: Report on bail [[later in April] 2023 to [a day in June] 2023 at [that location] every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 8:00 and 20:00 once a day.  Conduct: Not to drink alcohol or take drugs AND comply with AVO for the protection of [Ms B]

13. The partner [Ms A’s] statement, dated 21/5/2023, discusses the incident [in January] 2021 that led to the applicant getting an AVO due to a domestic violence matter in their home. She discussed an argument she had with the applicant when he had been intoxicated, she contacted the police and the outcome was an AVO. He learnt a lesson that he would never drink alcohol whilst with her and her daughter.

14. The applicant’s statement dated 9/9/2021 discussed the incident [in February] 2021 that led to his being remanded into criminal custody on a charge of Aggravated Enter Dwelling W/I Inflict ABH-SI. This charge was subsequently changed to Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm T2; and Enter Building/Land w/i Commit Indictable Offence T-1, and convictions on [a day in February] 2022. He stated in part:

    1. I was charged with apprehended domestic violence and attended the [Court 2]  [in] February 2021.
    2. I am truly remorseful for my behaviour and deeply regret my action towards my
    [mother’s] partner: [Mr A].
    3. The incident took place at my mother’s sister home: [Address in Suburb 3].
    4. My mother’s [sister’s] husband is [Mr A’s] brother and they all live together at the abovementioned address.
    5. My aunt helps Tongan people with their visa applications and she supported my
    mother and [Mr A’s] relationship in order for [Mr A] to obtain Australian
    permanent residency. I previously confronted my aunt about this matter and she told
    me to mind my own business.
    6. I was intoxicated that night but it was not an excuse for my behaviour. I was quite
    angry with [Mr A] because I believed he was just using my mother to obtain his
    permanent visa in Australia. My mother has so many children and I believed that she
    was in a position to re-marry again especially to help someone out to get his
    permanent residency in Australia.
    7. I used to be a regular visitor to my aunt’s home prior to the incident. I went there that
    night just to confront [Mr A] for using my mother to obtain his permanent visa in
    Australia. However, when I found [Mr A] together with my mother in bed, I was
    furious because it confirmed that he was using my mother. I truly regret physically
    attacking him that night and I have no excuse.
    8. It was my [aunt] who reported me to the police and provided most of the
    information although she was not physically present in the room when the incident
    occurred.
    9. I truly believe that my aunt further exaggerated her story to the police due to
    disagreement we had previously. It was this aunt who lodged my Protection visa
    application in 2020 even though I did not give her my consent. I only found out that
    she lodged my visa application when my mother brought me a copy of what I believe
    was a bridging visa. Furthermore, the first time I found out about the details she
    provided for my claims for protection when an officer from Immigration contacted
    me. My aunt was very angry when I told the Immigration officer that she lodged my
    application and made up my claims for protection herself. I truly believe that my aunt
    made up my claims in order to tarnish my character as a drug user and dealer in
    Tonga.
    10. I have been on a long term de facto relationship with my partner: [Ms A] who is an Australian citizen and we were planning for me to return to Tonga to lodge my partner visa after we got married. My aunt knew that was my planned but she went ahead and lodged a Protection visa without my consent.

15. The applicant’s submission, dated 18/5/2023, discusses the applicant’s criminal record and incidents, submits in summary:

    ·The partner had an AVO on the applicant after an argument when he was intoxicated.

    ·There had been ‘only two scenarios’. The first was when the applicant was intoxicated, and involved the applicant’s step-father [Mr A]. The sentence has been served, including an AVO. They are presently on ‘very good terms’.

    ·The second scenario involved the partner’s sister, the applicant’s sister-in-law, also when the applicant was intoxicated. An AVO is in force, at least until the court hearing. Nonetheless, the sister-in-law is one of the witnesses for the partner visa application of the applicant and [Ms A].

16. The partner [Ms A’s] statement, undated, states in part:

    Please give [the applicant] another chance, I believe he is a changed man. I have one kidney but [the applicant] has accepted me for who I am. He does all the house duties every day. Most importantly he looks after our daughter [Daughter A] very well. He takes [Daughter A] to school every day and return her home from school every day.

17. [Mr A] made a statement on 21 May 2023 in support of the applicant.

18. [Ms B] made a statement on 21 May 2023 in support of the applicant.

19. At hearing the Tribunal fully discussed the applicant’s visa history and the visas that he has held since he first entered Australia [in] December 2017, as summarised:

    ·8/5/2018   His subclass 600 visa ceased

    ·8/5/2018 to 3/9/2020   He was an Unlawful Non-Citizen (UNC)

    ·3/9/2020  Application for Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa

    ·8/9/2020  Granted associated Bridging (Class WC) (Subclass 030) visa

    ·31/3/2021                   Application for Protection visa refused

    ·5/5/2021  Bridging C visa therefore ceased 35 calendar days later

    ·[July] 2021                  Released on bail, with no visa

    ·12/7/2021                   Applied online for a Bridging (Class WE) (Subclass 050) visa

    ·22/7/2021                   Review application lodged AAT, re Protection visa refusal

    ·2/6/2022  AAT makes a No Jurisdiction decision, notified 3/6/2022

    ·[April] 2023 Detained by the ABF under s189 of the Migration Act

    ·1/5/2023  Interview by a Status Resolution officer

    ·2/5/2023  Application Combined Partner (Subclass 820/801) visa

    ·Taken to have made Bridging E visa application

    ·5/5/2023  Refusal decision for Bridging E visa (applied 12/7/2021)

    ·10/5/2023                   Detention Review Officer informed about Partner visa appl

    ·11/5/2023                   Refusal decision for Bridging E visa (applied May 2023)

    ·12/5/2023                   Review application lodged

20. At hearing the applicant stated the charges are all true and he takes responsibility for his actions. He stated the first AVO was by his partner and due to a misunderstanding. The second AVO was issued when he had a disagreement and assaulted his mother’s partner, and he was taken into custody. The third AVO was as a result of an argument with his intoxicated partner’s sister: a day after the party she had accepted his apology. All of the AVOs were in the family circle and all of the incidents are settled. The applicant stated that he had not been notified of the refusal on 5 May 2023 of the Bridging E visa application that had been lodged on 12 July 2021. If he was allowed to work he would likely seek to work [in specified work].

21. At hearing [Ms A] stated the applicant had long-term issues with his mother having left most of the children in Tonga when she moved to Australia. His father died during covid. The applicant is a good guy: she is sick and he looks after her daughter and helps the family a lot. He takes the child to school and back, and she works in a [business] 3 days per week. They go to Church and seek to get Church help for his issues. They gathered $8,200 for the Partner visa application through family. The applicant does not have a gun. The applicant doesn’t deny his actions; he has had suicidal thoughts. She doesn’t have much savings.

1. At hearing the Tribunal discussed how the applicant’s actions had potentially jeopardised his application to stay in Australia. That if he was granted a visa and left detention, a further incident involving police and/or a charge would be very bad for him in any migration matter. The applicant and [Ms A] assured the Tribunal that he would not become involved in any further altercations while he held a Bridging E visa.

   Time of application criteria

2. At time of application the applicant was an unlawful non-citizen. Cl.050.211(1)(a) is satisfied.

3. The applicant satisfies cl.050.212(3) because on 2 May 2023 he made a valid application for a Combined Partner (Class UK/BS) (Subclass 820/810) visa, that had not been finally determined. 

   Time of decision criteria

4. At the time of decision, cl.050.221 requires that the applicant must continue to meet cl.050.211 and one of the subclauses of cl.050.212. The applicant continues to meet cl.050.212(3) as the application for a Combined Partner (Class UK/BS) (Subclass 820/810) visa has not been finally determined.

   Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl 050.223

5. Clause 050.223 requires that the Tribunal is satisfied at the time of decision, that if a bridging visa is granted to the applicant, the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on it. Conditions that may be imposed on a Subclass 050 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.

6. 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].

7. If the Tribunal is satisfied that 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 that the applicant will comply with the conditions, regardless of any security that may be imposed, cl 050.223 is not met.

8. In this case, cl 050.617 applies because the applicant meets cl.050.212(3). This clause prescribes that certain conditions may be imposed. The Tribunal considers that the following conditions should be imposed in the circumstances of this case:

   8401 - The holder must report

   (a)at a time or times; and

   (b)at a place;

   specified by the Minister for the purpose.

   8506 - The holder must notify immigration at least 2 working days in advance of any change in the holder’s address.

   8564 - The holder must not engage in criminal conduct.

   Where and with whom he would stay

9. The applicant would return to his home with [Ms A] and child at [Suburb 3]. He has applied for a Partner visa on the basis of a de facto relationship with [Ms A], and that is their mutual residence.

   How would he be financially supported

10. At hearing, [Ms A] stated she would fully financially support the applicant because he did not have permission to work. She works three days per week and had been able to support him in the past. The applicant helps her around the house and helps care for her daughter. The Tribunal pointed out that if he was released from detention he would not have a ‘no work’ visa condition, and the applicant stated if he was legally able to work he would be able to seek [specified work].

    Would he seek to hide in the community

11. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would not seek to hide in the community. While he was an Unlawful Non-citizen from 8 May 2018 to 3 September 2020, he then made an application to stay in Australia and he has since provided his residence details to the Department. Subsequently he has applied for a Partner visa on the basis of a long-term relationship with [Ms A], that has not been decided. The Tribunal is satisfied that he is well aware that any actions that breach migration law or future visa conditions would potentially seriously affect his Partner visa application, his continued stay in Australia, and/or any other future migration matters he may have.

12. In sum, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions that he report to the Department when required to, and that he would notify of a change of residence:

    8401 - The holder must report

    (a)at a time or times; and

    (b)at a place;

    specified by the Minister for the purpose.

    8506 - The holder must notify immigration at least 2 working days in advance of any change in the holder’s address.

    Would he engage in criminal conduct

13. The Tribunal is concerned by the applicant’s behaviour in Australia, ostensibly worsened when he is intoxicated. His history of having three AVOs taken out against him since 2021 raises strong concerns about his future conduct, particularly if he continues drinking alcohol to a stage of intoxication.

14. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has given great weight to [Ms A’s] evidence at hearing concerning the applicant and his circumstances. In light of the applicant’s and particularly [Ms A’s] evidence at hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the personal altercation between him and [Ms A] that led to an AVO was an isolated incident some years ago, that has not been repeated. The AVO expired some time ago. [Ms A] appears keen to get the applicant released from detention and to continue their de facto relationship living together with her child.

15. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s explanations for the other two occurrences, an actual assault involving the mother’s partner, and a threatening incident involving a sister-in-law. He has completed his custodial sentence ([February] to [July] 2021), but still has some months to complete an 18 month Intensive Corrections Order commencing [in] February 2022 to [August] 2023, as well as an 18 month AVO. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s and [Ms A’s] statements that all of the parties have resolved their differences and the applicant has apologised for his behaviour. To support this submission, a statement by [Mr A] on 21 May 2023 stated as summarised that: it was the police who decided to lay charges; he had forgiven the applicant; he is stronger than the applicant who has learnt a lesson never to interfere in his mother’s business; “We are a family, if [the applicant] needs my help, I will help him because he is now my step-son”.

16. The last charge concerning the sister-in-law has a future court date, and if convicted, further orders may be placed on the applicant. In her statement of 21 May 2023, [Ms B] stated in summary: after the altercation the applicant had left her residence before the police arrived; the applicant apologised to her; “I intend to request the court to forgive [the applicant], because we are a family”.

17. The Tribunal has given weight to the applicant’s evidence that he would control his temper and not again become involved in violent and/or threatening altercations. He is supported by his partner and her evidence is that he has a good relationship with the daughter. The Tribunal accepts that he would abide by NSW court orders and is also seeking help from the Church. The Tribunal accepts that the two relatives he had altercations with, have ostensibly forgiven him and are presently on ‘good’ terms with him. The applicant is well aware that any further occurrences would breach a visa condition and so would potentially lead to him returning to detention, and seriously affect his Partner visa application, his continued stay in Australia, and/or any other future migration matters he may have.

18. In sum, the Tribunal is satisfied that whilst the applicant held a Bridging E visa, he would abide by the condition that he not engage in criminal conduct.

    Conclusion

19. On the evidence before it, and in light of the credibility findings set out in the foregoing discussion, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by conditions imposed on the visa if granted:

    8401 - The holder must report

    (a)at a time or times; and

    (b)at a place;

    specified by the Minister for the purpose.

    8506 - The holder must notify immigration at least 2 working days in advance of any change     in the holder’s address.

    8564 - The holder must not engage in criminal conduct.

20. The Tribunal therefore finds the applicant meets cl.050.223.

21. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa:

    ·cl 050.212(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and

    ·cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    C. Packer
    Member