2308195 (Migration)

Case [2023] AATA 2237

2308195 (Migration) [2023] AATA 2237 (21 June 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2308195

MEMBER:De-Anne Kelly

DATE:21 June 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 21 June 2023 at 2:32pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – acceptable arrangements and genuine intention to depart Australia – single ticket for applicant and return for partner purchased – intention to make offshore partner visa application – claim of fear of harm by ex-husband and preference to stay in Australia and lodge application here – abidance by conditions – visa history – previous protection visa applications refused, with unsuccessful tribunal and judicial reviews and ministerial interventions not considered – periods as unlawful non-citizen and immigration detention – previous non-departure and forfeit of security bond – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 73, 48A, 48B 195(2), 269, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 050.212(2), 050.223, Schedule 8, condition 8401

CASES
Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (2002) 70 ALD 289
Chen v MIMIA [2001] FCA 285
Lin v MIMIA [2001] FCA 283

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 7 June 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 and cl 050.212(2) – (9).

  3. The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 9 June 2023 on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 050.212 and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Bridging (Class WE) general (subclass 050) visa. Also, the applicant did not meet the requirements in clause 051.211 and did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Bridging (Class WE) Protection visa applicant (subclass 051) visa. Therefore, the delegate refused the application for grant of a Bridging (Class WE) visa lodged on 07 June 2023.

  4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 June 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in…

Continue reading 2308195 (Migration)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
2308195 (Migration) [2023] AATA 2237
Case
[2023] AATA 2237
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (subclass 050) by a citizen of Nepal who was an unlawful non-citizen detained in Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. The applicant had been in Australia since 2005 and had an extensive migration history involving numerous visa applications, refusals, appeals, ministerial interventions, and periods as an unlawful non-citizen. The applicant claimed a fear of harm from her ex-husband and a preference to remain in Australia to lodge a partner visa application, asserting she had purchased a single flight ticket for herself and a return ticket for her partner.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated acceptable arrangements and a genuine intention to depart Australia, as required for the grant of a Bridging E visa. This involved assessing the applicant's overall migration history, her compliance with previous visa conditions, and the credibility of her stated intentions regarding departure and offshore partner visa application. The court also considered the impact of the section 48A bar on lodging further protection visa applications and the continued imposition of Condition 8503 on her initial substantive visa.

The court's reasoning focused on the applicant's protracted history of non-compliance with visa conditions, including multiple instances of failing to depart Australia by specified dates and presenting valid travel tickets. The court noted that previous applications for protection visas and requests for ministerial intervention had been refused or deemed inappropriate to consider. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's claim of fear of harm from her ex-husband had not been substantiated in a manner that would override her extensive history of non-compliance and the imposition of Condition 8503. The court also highlighted that the applicant had not provided evidence of a purchased ticket for her partner, nor had she demonstrated a genuine intention to depart Australia, given her prolonged unlawful status and repeated failures to comply with departure obligations.

The court affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E visa. The applicant's extensive history of non-compliance with visa conditions, including repeated failures to depart Australia as required, led the court to find that she had not demonstrated acceptable arrangements or a genuine intention to depart. Consequently, the applicant remained subject to removal from Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Section 359AA provides as follows:(a) The Tribunal may orally give to the applicant clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review; and(b) if the Tribunal does so—the Tribunal must:(i)ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why the information is relevant to the review, and the consequences of the information being relied on in affirming the decision that is under review; and(ii) orally invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information; and(iii) advise the applicant that he or she may seek additional time to comment on or respond to the information; and(iv) if the applicant seeks additional time to comment on or respond to the information—adjourn the review, if the Tribunal considers that the applicant reasonably needs additional time to comment on or respond to the information.“The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia” was imposed on this visa.CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidenceBackground The applicant is currently an unlawful non-citizen held in detention in Villawood Detention Centre in NSW awaiting removal to Nepal. She is a Nepal citizen born on [Date] and originally came to Australia on a Visitor visa in 2005 together with her husband, son and daughter. The applicant has an Australian citizen partner [Mr A] and a son [Mr B] as well as a daughter-in-law and grandchild in Australia. The applicant’s daughter and husband returned to Nepal several years ago. The applicant has been unlawful for extended periods of time over the nearly 18 years she has remained in Australia as can be seen from her migration history below most notably from 9 January 2010 to 4 March 2014.Migration History Below is the delegates summary of the applicant’s migration history which the Tribunal has condensed into a table for ease of consideration. At the hearing the Tribunal took the applicant through the migration history, and she confirmed it as correct.“You arrived in Australia [in] November 2005 as the holder of a Visitor visa (subclass TR-676) and have not departed since. This visa permitted you to remain onshore until 28 December 2005 and Condition 8503 - “The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia” was imposed on this visa. On 23 December 2005, you lodged an application for a Permanent Protection visa (subclass XA-PV)(XA-PV(1)) and were granted a Bridging A visa (subclass WA-010)(BVA(1)) in association to this application. On 15 March 2006, your XA-PV(1) application was refused. On 11 April 2006, you lodged an application for merits review of your XA-PV(1) refusal at the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). On 31 August 2006, the RRT affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse your XA-PV(1) application. [In] September 2006, you sought judicial review of the RRT’s decision at the Federal Magistrates Court (FMC) and were granted a further BVA(2) in association with this proceeding. On 21 May 2007, your application for judicial review was finalised by the FMC as Minister Win and on [June] 2007, you sought further review of this decision at the Full Federal Court (FFC). On 08 August 2007, your BVA(2) ceased and you were granted a further BVA(3) in association to your ongoing judicial review. [In] August 2007, your application for judicial review was finalised by the FFC as Minister Win and on 14 September 2007, your BVA(3) ceased. On 15 September 2007, you became an unlawful non-citizen (UNC). [In] September 2007, you sought judicial review of the FFC’s decision at the High Court (HC). On 13 November 2007, you were located by Enforcement Officers (CERF) whilst UNC and was subsequently granted a Bridging E visa (subclass WE-050)(BVE(1)) to regularise your status. On 16 November 2007, your BVE(1) ceased and you were granted a further BVE(2) in association to your ongoing judicial review. [In] April 2008, your application for judicial review was finalised by the HC as Minister Win and on 22 May 2008, your BVE(2) ceased. On 23 May 2008, you again became an UNC.On 21 May 2008, you lodged your first request for Ministerial Intervention (MI(1)) under section 417 of the Act. Between 09 September 2008 and 10 June 2009, you were granted a further five BVE’s (BVE(3) through BVE(7)) in relation to your ongoing MI(1) request. On 12 November 2008, you lodged a further XA-PV(2) application. However, due to your previous XA-PV(1) refusal, you were barred from lodging a further application for a protection visa under section 48a of the Act and your application was subsequently converted to an s48b request by the Department. On 11 December 2008, your s48b request was refused and you were therefore not permitted to lodge a further application for a Protection visa. On 27 June 2009, your MI(1) was finalised as ‘Not Considered’. On 22 July 2009, your BVE(7) ceased and you were granted a further BVE(8) on departure grounds. Condition 8401 - “The holder must report: (a) at the time or times; and (b) at a place or in a manner; specified by the Minister from time to time” was imposed on this BVE, requiring you to attend an interview at the Department on 04 August 2009. Condition 8511 - “Within the time specified by the Minister for the purpose, the holder must, show an officer a ticket for travel to a country other than Australia that the Minister is satisfied will allow the holder to enter on his or her arrival” was also imposed on this BVE, requiring you to “present a fully paid ticket by 04 August 2009 to depart Australia by no later than 31 August 2009.” On 04 August 2009, your BVE(8) ceased and on 05 August 2009, you again became a UNC. As you did not present to the Department on 04 August 2009 or provide an officer a valid ticket for departure as required, you did not comply with Conditions 8401 and 8511. On 26 November 2009, you again were located by CERF while working at [a Workplace]. On that same day, you were detained under s189 of the Act and admitted to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC). On 02 December 2009, while in immigration detention, you lodged an application for a further BVE(9). On 04 December 2009, this application was refused by the Department under 050.223 and on 08 December 2009, you sought merits review of this refusal at the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT). On 17 December 2009, the MRT set aside your BVE(9) refusal and remitted it back to the Department for reconsideration. On 23 December 2009, you were granted BVE(9) on departure grounds and released from immigration detention. Condition 8401 - “The holder must report: (a) at the time or times; and (b) at a place or in a manner; specified by the Minister from time to time”, Condition 8511 - “Within the time specified by the Minister for the purpose, the holder must, show an officer a ticket for travel to a country other than Australia that the Minister is satisfied will allow the holder to enter on his or her arrival” and 8512 - “The holder must leave Australia by the date specified by the Minister for the purpose” were imposed on this visa. In addition, you paid a $22,000 security bond in order to ensure your compliance with these visa conditions. On 08 January 2010, your BVE(9) ceased and you again became an UNC. As you failed to report to the Department, present an officer a valid ticket and depart Australia on or by this date, you did not comply with the conditions imposed on your visa and your $22,000 bond was forfeited to the Department on 28 May 2012 accordingly. On 25 February 2014, whilst still an UNC, you lodged a further application for an XA-PV(3). On 27 February 2014, your XA-PV(3) application was determined to be valid as you were affected by the SZGIZ judgement and therefore the s48b bar no longer applied to your case. On 04 March 2014, you were granted a further BVE(10) in association to your ongoing XA-PV(3) application. On 28 July 2014, your XA-PV(3) application was refused and on 26 August 2014, you applied for merits review of this decision at the RRT. On 09 May 2016, the RRT affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse you XA-PV(3) application and on 14 June 2016 your BVE(10) ceased. [In] June 2016, you sought judicial review of the RRT’s decision at the FCC and were granted a further BVE(11) in association with this proceeding. [In] October 2016, your application for judicial review was finalised by the FCC as Minister Withdraw and your XA-PV(3) application was referred back to the RRT for reconsideration on 11 October 2016. On 10 April 2017, the RRT again affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse your XA-PV(3) application and [in] May 2017 you sought further judicial review of at the FCC. On 19 May 2017, your BVE(11) ceased and you were granted a further BVE(12) in association to your ongoing judicial review. [In] May 2018, your application for judicial review was finalised by the FCC as Minister Win and [in] June 2018, you sought judicial review of the FCC’s decision at the FFC. [In] November 2018, your application for judicial review finalised by the FFC as Minister Win and on 12 December 2018, your associated BVE(12) ceased. On 13 December 2018, you again became an UNC. On 21 February 2022, whilst still an UNC, you lodged a second request for Ministerial Intervention (MI(2)) under s417 of the Act and on 22 February 2022 you applied for a further BVE(13). On 25 February 2022 you were granted BVE(13) which permitted you to remain onshore until 25 August 2022. On 12 May 2022, your MI(2) request was finalised as ‘Inappropriate to Consider’. On 25 February 2022, you lodged a further application for a Protection visa (subclass XA-866), however, due to your previous XA-PV(3) refusal, you are barred from lodging a further application for a protection visa under section 48a of the Act, and your application was subsequently converted to an s48b request by the Department. On 16 November 2022, your s48b request was refused and you were therefore not permitted to lodge a further application for a Protection visa. On 17 May 2022, you lodged a request to waive Condition 8503 - “The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia” imposed on the substantive visa with which you entered Australia as you were seeking to lodge an application for a substantive visa onshore. On 03 June 2022, your waiver request was refused by the Department. On 11 July 2022, you applied for merits review of your waiver request refusal at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). On 03 November 2022, the AAT determined that they do not have jurisdiction to review your waiver refusal and your application for merits review was finalised accordingly. As of today’s date 09 June 2023, you remain subject to Condition 8503 - “The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia”. On 25 August 2022, your BVE(13) ceased and you were granted a further BVE(14) on departure grounds with Condition 8511 - “Within the time specified by the Minister for the purpose, the holder must, show an officer a ticket for travel to a country other than Australia that the Minister is satisfied will allow the holder to enter on his or her arrival imposed”. This condition required you to present a ticket valid for departure to the Department by 25 October 2022. On 25 October 2022, your BVE(14) ceased and on 26 October 2022, you again became an UNC. As you did not present a ticket valid for departure to the Department by 25 October 2022, you did not comply with Condition 8511 - Show Valid Ticket. On 08 November 2022, you were granted a further BVE(15) on departure grounds. On 08 February 2023, your BVE(15) ceased and on 09 February 2023, you again became an UNC. On 02 March 2023, you were granted a further BVE(16) on departure grounds with Condition 8511 - “Within the time specified by the Minister for the purpose, the holder must, show an officer a ticket for travel to a country other than Australia that the Minister is satisfied will allow the holder to enter on his or her arrival” and Condition 8512 - “The holder must leave Australia by the date specified by the Minister for the purpose imposed”. These conditions required you to present a ticket valid for departure to the Department and to depart Australia by 14 April 2023. On 14 April 2023, your BVE(16) ceased and on 15 April 2023, you again became an UNC. As you did not present a ticket valid for departure to the Department or depart Australia by 14 April 2023, you did not comply with Condition 8511 and Condition 8512. On 02 March 2023, you lodged a third request for Ministerial Intervention (MI(3)) under s417 of the Act. On 13 March 2023, your MI(3) request was finalised as ‘Inappropriate to Consider’. On 13 March 2023, you lodged a further application for a Protection visa (subclass XA-866). However, due to your previous XA-PV(3) refusal and unsuccessful request for the s48a bar to be lifted, you remain barred from lodging a further application for a protection visa under section 48a of the Act, and therefore, your application was again converted to an s48b request by the Department. On 17 March 2023, your s48b request was refused and you were therefore not permitted to lodge a further application for a Protection visa. On 30 April 2023, you were granted a further BVE(17) on departure grounds with Condition 8512 - “The holder must leave Australia by the date specified by the Minister for the purpose” imposed. This condition required you to depart Australia by 15 May 2023. On 15 May 2023, your BVE(17) ceased and on 16 May 2023, you again became an UNC. As you did not depart Australia by 15 May 2023, you again did not comply with Condition 8512. On 29 May 2023, you lodged an application for a further BVE(18) on departure grounds. On 01 June 2023, your BVE(18) application was refused under 050.223 and you were detained under s189 of the Act by Australian Border Force (ABF). On this date, you were again admitted to VIDC, where you currently remain. On 07 June 2023, you lodged a further application for a BVE(19) while in immigration detention. The Detention Review Officer was notified about the lodgement of this application on 07 June 2023, as required under Item 1305(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations. It is this application that is currently under assessment. You have no ongoing immigration matters at the time of this BVE(19) application and are subject to the s48a bar and Condition 8503 - “The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia”.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Procedural MattersInterpretation. Initially the applicant had difficulty in hearing the interpreter due to some interference on the connection however this resolved itself and the Tribunal asked on further occasions if the interpretation was clear and could be understood and the applicant confirmed that was the case. Moreover, clear and appropriate responses to questions indicated that the interpretation was understood.Adjournments Two brief adjournments were given during the hearing mainly to relieve the interpreter.Section 359AA of the Act At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal explained that it may put information to the applicant, under s.359AA of the Act, that would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review and that it would explain why this information was relevant to the decision and how it may be relied upon in reaching a decision. The Tribunal also advised that the applicant would be given an opportunity to respond to this information in one of three ways: they could request an adjournment and the hearing could be stopped for 15 or 20 minutes or whatever period of time they wished and they could seek advice; the applicant could make a written submission within 14 days or an extended period of time if they requested an extension; or they could respond in the hearing. If they responded in the hearing, it would not prevent them from making a written submission within 14 days or a longer period if they requested an extension of time. Section 359AA provides as follows:(a) The Tribunal may orally give to the applicant clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review; and(b) if the Tribunal does so—the Tribunal must:(i)ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why the information is relevant to the review, and the consequences of the information being relied on in affirming the decision that is under review; and(ii) orally invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information; and(iii) advise the applicant that he or she may seek additional time to comment on or respond to the information; and(iv) if the applicant seeks additional time to comment on or respond to the information—adjourn the review, if the Tribunal considers that the applicant reasonably needs additional time to comment on or respond to the information.“The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia” was imposed on this visa.CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidenceBackground The applicant is currently an unlawful non-citizen held in detention in Villawood Detention Centre in NSW awaiting removal to Nepal. She is a Nepal citizen born on [Date] and originally came to Australia on a Visitor visa in 2005 together with her husband, son and daughter. The applicant has an Australian citizen partner [Mr A] and a son [Mr B] as well as a daughter-in-law and grandchild in Australia. The applicant’s daughter and husband returned to Nepal several years ago. The applicant has been unlawful for extended periods of time over the nearly 18 years she has remained in Australia as can be seen from her migration history below most notably from 9 January 2010 to 4 March 2014.Migration History

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The applicant is currently an unlawful non-citizen held in detention in Villawood Detention Centre in NSW awaiting removal to Nepal. She is a Nepal citizen born on [Date] and originally came to Australia on a Visitor visa in 2005 together with her husband, son and daughter. The applicant has an Australian citizen partner [Mr A] and a son [Mr B] as well as a daughter-in-law and grandchild in Australia. The applicant’s daughter and husband returned to Nepal several years ago. The applicant has been unlawful for extended periods of time over the nearly 18 years she has remained in Australia as can be seen from her migration history below most notably from 9 January 2010 to 4 March 2014.Migration History Below is the delegates summary of the applicant’s migration history which the Tribunal has condensed into a table for ease of consideration. At the hearing the Tribunal took the applicant through the migration history, and she confirmed it as correct.“You arrived in Australia [in] November 2005 as the holder of a Visitor visa (subclass TR-676) and have not departed since. This visa permitted you to remain onshore until 28 December 2005 and Condition 8503 - “The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia” was imposed on this visa. On 23 December 2005, you lodged an application for a Permanent Protection visa (subclass XA-PV)(XA-PV(1)) and were granted a Bridging A visa (subclass WA-010)(BVA(1)) in association to this application. On 15 March 2006, your XA-PV(1) application was refused. On 11 April 2006, you lodged an application for merits review of your XA-PV(1) refusal at the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). On 31 August 2006, the RRT affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse your XA-PV(1) application. [In] September 2006, you sought judicial review of the RRT’s decision at the Federal Magistrates Court (FMC) and were granted a further BVA(2) in association with this proceeding. On 21 May 2007, your application for judicial review was finalised by the FMC as Minister Win and on [June] 2007, you sought further review of this decision at the Full Federal Court (FFC). On 08 August 2007, your BVA(2) ceased and you were granted a further BVA(3) in association to your ongoing judicial review. [In] August 2007, your application for judicial review was finalised by the FFC as Minister Win and on 14 September 2007, your BVA(3) ceased. On 15 September 2007, you became an unlawful non-citizen (UNC). [In] September 2007, you sought judicial review of the FFC’s decision at the High Court (HC). On 13 November 2007, you were located by Enforcement Officers (CERF) whilst UNC and was subsequently granted a Bridging E visa (subclass WE-050)(BVE(1)) to regularise your status. On 16 November 2007, your BVE(1) ceased and you were granted a further BVE(2) in association to your ongoing judicial review. [In] April 2008, your application for judicial review was finalised by the HC as Minister Win and on 22 May 2008, your BVE(2) ceased. On 23 May 2008, you again became an UNC.On 21 May 2008, you lodged your first request for Ministerial Intervention (MI(1)) under section 417 of the Act. Between 09 September 2008 and 10 June 2009, you were granted a further five BVE’s (BVE(3) through BVE(7)) in relation to your ongoing MI(1) request. On 12 November 2008, you lodged a further XA-PV(2) application. However, due to your previous XA-PV(1) refusal, you were barred from lodging a further application for a protection visa under section 48a of the Act and your application was subsequently converted to an s48b request by the Department. On 11 December 2008, your s48b request was refused and you were therefore not permitted to lodge a further application for a Protection visa. On 27 June 2009, your MI(1) was finalised as ‘Not Considered’. On 22 July 2009, your BVE(7) ceased and you were granted a further BVE(8) on departure grounds. Condition 8401 - “The holder must report: (a) at the time or times; and (b) at a place or in a manner; specified by the Minister from time to time” was imposed on this BVE, requiring you to attend an interview at the Department on 04 August 2009. Condition 8511 - “Within the time specified by the Minister for the purpose, the holder must, show an officer a ticket for travel to a country other than Australia that the Minister is satisfied will allow the holder to enter on his or her arrival” was also imposed on this BVE, requiring you to “present a fully paid ticket by 04 August 2009 to depart Australia by no later than 31 August 2009.” On 04 August 2009, your BVE(8) ceased and on 05 August 2009, you again became a UNC. As you did not present to the Department on 04 August 2009 or provide an officer a valid ticket for departure as required, you did not comply with Conditions 8401 and 8511. On 26 November 2009, you again were located by CERF while working at [a Workplace]. On that same day, you were detained under s189 of the Act and admitted to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (VIDC). On 02 December 2009, while in immigration detention, you lodged an application for a further BVE(9). On 04 December 2009, this application was refused by the Department under 050.223 and on 08 December 2009, you sought merits review of this refusal at the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT). On 17 December 2009, the MRT set aside your BVE(9) refusal and remitted it back to the Department for reconsideration. On 23 December 2009, you were granted BVE(9) on departure grounds and released from immigration detention. Condition 8401 - “The holder must report: (a) at the time or times; and (b) at a place or in a manner; specified by the Minister from time to time”, Condition 8511 - “Within the time specified by the Minister for the purpose, the holder must, show an officer a ticket for travel to a country other than Australia that the Minister is satisfied will allow the holder to enter on his or her arrival” and 8512 - “The holder must leave Australia by the date specified by the Minister for the purpose” were imposed on this visa. In addition, you paid a $22,000 security bond in order to ensure your compliance with these visa conditions. On 08 January 2010, your BVE(9) ceased and you again became an UNC. As you failed to report to the Department, present an officer a valid ticket and depart Australia on or by this date, you did not comply with the conditions imposed on your visa and your $22,000 bond was forfeited to the Department on 28 May 2012 accordingly. On 25 February 2014, whilst still an UNC, you lodged a further application for an XA-PV(3). On 27 February 2014, your XA-PV(3) application was determined to be valid as you were affected by the SZGIZ judgement and therefore the s48b bar no longer applied to your case. On 04 March 2014, you were granted a further BVE(10) in association to your ongoing XA-PV(3) application. On 28 July 2014, your XA-PV(3) application was refused and on 26 August 2014, you applied for merits review of this decision at the RRT. On 09 May 2016, the RRT affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse you XA-PV(3) application and on 14 June 2016 your BVE(10) ceased. [In] June 2016, you sought judicial review of the RRT’s decision at the FCC and were granted a further BVE(11) in association with this proceeding. [In] October 2016, your application for judicial review was finalised by the FCC as Minister Withdraw and your XA-PV(3) application was referred back to the RRT for reconsideration on 11 October 2016. On 10 April 2017, the RRT again affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse your XA-PV(3) application and [in] May 2017 you sought further judicial review of at the FCC. On 19 May 2017, your BVE(11) ceased and you were granted a further BVE(12) in association to your ongoing judicial review. [In] May 2018, your application for judicial review was finalised by the FCC as Minister Win and [in] June 2018, you sought judicial review of the FCC’s decision at the FFC. [In] November 2018, your application for judicial review finalised by the FFC as Minister Win and on 12 December 2018, your associated BVE(12) ceased. On 13 December 2018, you again became an UNC. On 21 February 2022, whilst still an UNC, you lodged a second request for Ministerial Intervention (MI(2)) under s417 of the Act and on 22 February 2022 you applied for a further BVE(13). On 25 February 2022 you were granted BVE(13) which permitted you to remain onshore until 25 August 2022. On 12 May 2022, your MI(2) request was finalised as ‘Inappropriate to Consider’. On 25 February 2022, you lodged a further application for a Protection visa (subclass XA-866), however, due to your previous XA-PV(3) refusal, you are barred from lodging a further application for a protection visa under section 48a of the Act, and your application was subsequently converted to an s48b request by the Department. On 16 November 2022, your s48b request was refused and you were therefore not permitted to lodge a further application for a Protection visa. On 17 May 2022, you lodged a request to waive Condition 8503 - “The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia” imposed on the substantive visa with which you entered Australia as you were seeking to lodge an application for a substantive visa onshore. On 03 June 2022, your waiver request was refused by the Department. On 11 July 2022, you applied for merits review of your waiver request refusal at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). On 03 November 2022, the AAT determined that they do not have jurisdiction to review your waiver refusal and your application for merits review was finalised accordingly. As of today’s date 09 June 2023, you remain subject to Condition 8503 - “The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia”. On 25 August 2022, your BVE(13) ceased and you were granted a further BVE(14) on departure grounds with Condition 8511 - “Within the time specified by the Minister for the purpose, the holder must, show an officer a ticket for travel to a country other than Australia that the Minister is satisfied will allow the holder to enter on his or her arrival imposed”. This condition required you to present a ticket valid for departure to the Department by 25 October 2022. On 25 October 2022, your BVE(14) ceased and on 26 October 2022, you again became an UNC. As you did not present a ticket valid for departure to the Department by 25 October 2022, you did not comply with Condition 8511 - Show Valid Ticket. On 08 November 2022, you were granted a further BVE(15) on departure grounds. On 08 February 2023, your BVE(15) ceased and on 09 February 2023, you again became an UNC. On 02 March 2023, you were granted a further BVE(16) on departure grounds with Condition 8511 - “Within the time specified by the Minister for the purpose, the holder must, show an officer a ticket for travel to a country other than Australia that the Minister is satisfied will allow the holder to enter on his or her arrival” and Condition 8512 - “The holder must leave Australia by the date specified by the Minister for the purpose imposed”. These conditions required you to present a ticket valid for departure to the Department and to depart Australia by 14 April 2023. On 14 April 2023, your BVE(16) ceased and on 15 April 2023, you again became an UNC. As you did not present a ticket valid for departure to the Department or depart Australia by 14 April 2023, you did not comply with Condition 8511 and Condition 8512. On 02 March 2023, you lodged a third request for Ministerial Intervention (MI(3)) under s417 of the Act. On 13 March 2023, your MI(3) request was finalised as ‘Inappropriate to Consider’. On 13 March 2023, you lodged a further application for a Protection visa (subclass XA-866). However, due to your previous XA-PV(3) refusal and unsuccessful request for the s48a bar to be lifted, you remain barred from lodging a further application for a protection visa under section 48a of the Act, and therefore, your application was again converted to an s48b request by the Department. On 17 March 2023, your s48b request was refused and you were therefore not permitted to lodge a further application for a Protection visa. On 30 April 2023, you were granted a further BVE(17) on departure grounds with Condition 8512 - “The holder must leave Australia by the date specified by the Minister for the purpose” imposed. This condition required you to depart Australia by 15 May 2023. On 15 May 2023, your BVE(17) ceased and on 16 May 2023, you again became an UNC. As you did not depart Australia by 15 May 2023, you again did not comply with Condition 8512. On 29 May 2023, you lodged an application for a further BVE(18) on departure grounds. On 01 June 2023, your BVE(18) application was refused under 050.223 and you were detained under s189 of the Act by Australian Border Force (ABF). On this date, you were again admitted to VIDC, where you currently remain. On 07 June 2023, you lodged a further application for a BVE(19) while in immigration detention. The Detention Review Officer was notified about the lodgement of this application on 07 June 2023, as required under Item 1305(3)(c) of the Migration Regulations. It is this application that is currently under assessment. You have no ongoing immigration matters at the time of this BVE(19) application and are subject to the s48a bar and Condition 8503 - “The holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia”.