2306873 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by a Sri Lankan national. The applicant sought the visa while his application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa was ongoing, and following the cancellation of his Temporary Protection Visa. The core dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant would abide by the conditions imposed on a bridging visa, specifically the "no work" condition (condition 8101), and whether there was sufficient assurance of his compliance.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E visa, specifically concerning his immigration status and the grounds for his application. Crucially, the Tribunal had to determine if it was satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions of the visa, particularly the prohibition on work, and whether the absence of a security bond to guarantee compliance was a relevant factor. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's past criminal conduct, which occurred within a domestic and family setting, and its relevance to assessing his future compliance with visa conditions.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant met the preliminary criteria for the visa, including his immigration status and the existence of an ongoing visa application and a review of a visa cancellation, it was not satisfied that he would abide by the mandatory "no work" condition. This conclusion was informed by the applicant's history of criminal conduct, including a conviction for common assault in a domestic context and subsequent charges that were later withdrawn. Despite the applicant and his wife providing evidence and explanations regarding these incidents, the Tribunal found aspects of their testimony concerning and noted the potential for future conflict. The Tribunal also considered the lack of a security bond as a factor that did not provide added assurance of compliance.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria for its grant. The Tribunal noted that it had no general discretion and that any humanitarian considerations would need to be addressed through a request to the Minister under section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for a substitution decision.