2307689 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa by a citizen of Brazil who was an unlawful non-citizen at the time of the decision. The applicant had a complex migration history, including multiple previous Bridging E visas granted on departure grounds, and had failed to comply with conditions imposed on several of these visas, such as providing a departure ticket or departing Australia by a specified date. The applicant's last substantive visa, a Student visa, ceased in March 2016, and since then, he had made numerous applications for Bridging E visas, with his most recent application being his eighth on departure grounds since his Protection visa application was refused in February 2021. The applicant stated he had no ongoing immigration matters and was not in a relationship or in contact with his children in Brazil, though he maintained contact with his parents.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Bridging E visa under clause 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was making, or was the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, as required by subclause 050.212(2). The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 050.211 regarding his immigration status.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant met the immigration status requirements of clause 050.211, he failed to satisfy the grounds for seeking the visa under clause 050.212. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not making, or the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. This conclusion was based on the applicant's extensive history of non-compliance with visa conditions, his stated intention not to depart Australia, and the lack of any genuine arrangements for his departure. The Tribunal applied the principle that "acceptable arrangements" requires genuine intentions, drawing on case law such as *Chen v MIMIA* and *Lin v MIMIA*, and concluded that the applicant's history demonstrated a lack of genuine intent to depart. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa (Subclass 051).

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