2317654 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) made by an applicant who had a complex immigration and criminal history in Australia. The applicant sought to satisfy criterion 050.212(3A) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The delegate had refused the visa, not being satisfied that the applicant would abide by its conditions. The applicant's history included numerous visa cancellations, refusals of protection visas, and multiple applications for judicial review, as well as convictions for domestic violence offences and contravention of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (AVO).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated that they would comply with the conditions of a Bridging E visa, specifically in light of their past conduct. This involved assessing the applicant's immigration history, their criminal record, and the evidence presented to demonstrate a commitment to future compliance. The court was required to consider the weight to be given to letters from the applicant and Ms A, the applicant's former partner, which expressed remorse and a desire for reconciliation, alongside the objective evidence of past breaches.

The court considered the applicant's extensive immigration history, which demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with visa conditions and a protracted engagement with judicial and merits review processes. It also noted the applicant's criminal history, including convictions for resisting an officer, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and contravening an AVO. While the applicant provided letters expressing remorse and a commitment to anger management, and Ms A expressed a desire to forgive and allow the applicant to be involved in their children's lives, the court found that these submissions did not sufficiently outweigh the applicant's past conduct. The court applied the principle that a decision-maker must be satisfied that the applicant will abide by visa conditions, and that past behaviour is a relevant indicator of future conduct.

The court found that the applicant had not satisfied the delegate that they would abide by the conditions of the Bridging E visa. Consequently, the decision under review was remitted back to the delegate for reconsideration.