2319578 (Migration)

[2023] AATA 4741

2319578 (Migration) [2023] AATA 4741 (11 December 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2319578

MEMBER:James Silva

DATE:11 December 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 11 December 2023 at 4:58pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – previous visa expired, period as unlawful non-citizen, homelessness and mental health – criminal convictions and imprisonment – further charges and immigration detention – wish to be released from detention for medical treatment – previous bridging visas on visa application or departure grounds – no application for substantive visa made – intention to apply for protection or student visa not genuine – no resources, material support or advice – no claims or evidence of eligibility on other specified grounds – not necessary to consider compliance with conditions – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), (9), 73, 376
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 050.212(3), 050.221, 050.223

CASES
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 378 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 24 November 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 050.212, which requires the applicant to meet one or more of the primary criteria for the grant of a bridging visa.

3. The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 29 November 2023 on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria at the time of application (24 November 2023); and that he did not continue to satisfy these at the time of decision.

4. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The issue in this case is whether the applicant satisfies one of the alternative grounds set out in cl.050.212(2)-(9)  at the time of application (‘the threshold criteria’): cl.050.212; and whether he continues to meet this criterion at the time of decision: cl.050.221.

   Background

6. The applicant is a [Age]-year-old man from Sri Lanka. The decision under review, a copy of which he provided to the Tribunal, provides background to this application. In brief, it states:

   §  [In] January 2017, the applicant arrived in Australia on a student visa (subclass 500 Higher Education Sector). The visa expired on 30 August 2020.

   §  The applicant remained in Australia from this time, without a visa.

   §  Criminal offences: During this period, the applicant was charged and convicted of various offences, including unlawful assault and contravening a family violence order. He served a period in criminal detention.

   §  The applicant has been granted a number of Bridging E visas:

   ­   A bridging E visa granted on 23 November 2020, on the basis that the applicant was intending to lodge a student visa application.

   ­   Bridging E visas issued on 7 December 2020 and 15 December 2020, both on the grounds that he was making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.

   §  Further criminal offences: In May 2023, the applicant was convicted of various offences, including unlawful assault and committing an indictable offence while on bail.

   §  The applicant was granted further Bridging E visas on 5 May and 23 June 2023, also on departure grounds.

   §  Further arrest: [In] September 2023, the applicant appeared before the [Magistrates’ Court], charged with various offences, and was granted bail.

   §  Also [in] September 2023, ABF officers detained him under s.189 and transferred him to the Melbourne Immigration Detention Centre.

7. At hearing, the applicant gave some further information about his circumstances in Australia, although it was difficult to establish a clear timeline. He said that he has a cousin in Australia, although his last contact with this person was in March 2023. The applicant indicated that they had had disagreements around the time that he had been intending to apply for a student visa (presumably late 2020), and that he (the applicant) had been reluctant to have contact with his relatives after his most recent criminal offending.

8. During the course of the discussion, he said that he had been homeless for periods, and suffered mentally. With reference to the [Organisation]’s offers of help to him (including, he claims, to lodge a protection visa application), he said that he had lost his passport, his telephone and his passwords in recent times. He conveyed the impression that he was disorganised and lacked support while living in the community.

   Claims and evidence

9. The Department and Tribunal files include the following relevant material.

   §  Bridging E visa application Form 1008 lodged on 24 November 2023, which includes additional information provided by the applicant concerning his health, and his wish to be released from immigration detention for medical treatment.

   §  The delegate’s decision record of 29 November 2023, a copy of which the applicant submitted to the Tribunal.

   §  The application for review.

   §  A four-page undated statement from the applicant, sent to the Tribunal on 8 December 2023.

   §  Typed list recording the dates and times on which the applicant has tried to call the [Organisation], in the period from 4 December 2023 (1:00pm) and 6 December 2023.

   §  A copy of the applicant’s ‘client medical request form’, dated 7 December 2023, requesting International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) to provide his medical and clinical records urgently, for him to forward to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not received any further material as of the date of this decision.

10. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments, at a hearing held on 8 December 2023, at 1:30pm. The held was held via video link between Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation (MITA) where the applicant is in immigration detention, and the Tribunal’s Sydney office. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tamil (Sri Lankan) and English languages, with the interpreter present in Sydney. In the pre-hearing letter and at hearing, the Tribunal alerted the applicant to his right not to give answers and provide material that might tend to incriminate him.

11. On 6 December 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, setting out for him the issues expected to be covered at hearing and during the review (including questions about his mental health, the Department’s non-disclosure certificate, and the issues that arise in relation to the criteria for the bridging visa). The purpose of the letter was to assist the applicant, who is unrepresented, to address the relevant issues. The applicant told the Tribunal that he read the letter. A friend had helped him write the submission sent on 8 December 2023, and there was substantive discussion of these matters at the hearing.

12. At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant about his current health, including any issues that might affect the conduct of the hearing. He indicated that he continues to suffer anxiety and depression, and that IHMS is providing treatment (including medication for depression and psychosis), and that seems to be helping him. He did not raise any concerns about his ability to present his case, and the Tribunal did not observe anything to raise questions about this.

    Non-disclosure certificate

13. The Department issued a certificate and notification under s.376 of the Act, dated 4 December 2023. This states that the disclosure of material on a number of folios would be contrary to the public interest on multiple grounds, as it would:

    a) prejudice a current or pending investigation of a possible breach of the law or enforcement of the law in a particular instance

    b) disclose, or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information

    c) disclose lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law which would or be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods

    d) endanger the life or physical safety of a person, and

    e) where information was provided ‘in confidence’, the provider of the information has not consented to the disclosure of the information to the review applicant.

14. These folios contain internal Department forms and correspondence, and notes from interviews conducted with the applicant on 5 May 2023 and 28 November 2023. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 6 December 2023 to alert him to the existence of its certificate, set out the gist of the information, and to invite his comment (if any) on the validity of the certificate. The applicant did not provide any substantive response.

15. The Tribunal is of the view that the certificate identifies valid public interest grounds for non-disclosure. It notes that the relevant information from these documents is included in the decision under review.

    The grounds for seeking the visa - cl 050.212

16. At the time of the visa application, the applicant must meet one of the alternatives set out in cl 050.212(2)-(9). The applicant must continue to satisfy this criterion at the time of decision: cl 050.221.

17. In this case, the applicant is seeking to meet cl 050.212(3), on the basis of a substantive visa application.

    Substantive visa application

18. Subclause 050.212(3) is met if the applicant has made, in Australia, a valid application for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the applicant is in Australia and that application has not been finally determined, or the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would apply for such a visa within a period specified for doing so.

19. ‘Substantive visa’ in this context means a visa other than a bridging visa, criminal justice visa or enforcement visa: s 5(1) of the Act. An application is ‘finally determined’ when it is no longer subject to merits review under Part 5 or Part 7 of the Act, or any prescribed period within which a merits review application must be submitted has passed without an application being made: s 5(9) of the Act.

20. The applicant has not made any application for a substantive visa, as of the date of his Bridging visa E application (24 November 2023), or the date of this decision. He therefore does not meet cl.050.212(3)(a) at the time of application, or continue to meet it at the time of this decision.

21. The applicant has signalled his intention to apply for a substantive visa, namely a protection visa: cl.050.212(3)(b). He expressed this on his bridging visa application as an ‘asylum seeker visa (subclass 866)’. He wrote that he intends to seek legal advice on these matters after his release from the detention centre.

    §  As noted in the delegate’s decision record, at interview on 28 November 2023, the applicant confirmed that he may apply for a protection visa, and also flagged that he may try again to obtain a student visa. He indicated that the [Organisation] had previously offered to arrange help for him, and he hoped they could provide legal advice on these matters.

    §  In the decision under review, the delegate intimated that he found the applicant’s references to future applications for both a protection visa and student visa confusing. In relation to the applicant’s stated intention to rely on assistance from the [Organisation], he noted the applicant’s statement that he had not been in contact with them for at least two months. He also noted that the applicant had been granted at least one previous bridging visa, on the applicant’s assurance that the [Organisation] was helping him with departure arrangements, and yet ‘nothing was adhered to’.

    §  The delegate gave the applicant’s ‘claims little weight’, and found that he did not meet cl.050.212(3).

22. In the pre-hearing submission and in his oral evidence, the applicant clarified his future intentions and addressed the steps he has taken to date towards lodging an application for a protection visa.

23. Protection visa application: The applicant told the Tribunal that his broad plan was to lodge a protection visa application, and if the visa were refused, he would seek review of the decision at the AAT, then the Federal Court and the High Court. Meanwhile, he would like to work and save money so that he can apply for another student visa and complete the final year of his studies in Australia. He would then seek to remain in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the bridging visa application and the applicant’s follow-up statements, that he has indicated he intends to apply for a protection visa, which is ‘a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if he is in Australia’.

24. Satisfaction that the applicant ‘will apply’: Significantly, cl.050.212(3) requires that the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will apply (in Australia, within a period allowed by the Minister for the purpose…) for the relevant visa, at the time of application (in this case, on 24 November 2023).

25. In his pre-hearing submission and in his oral evidence (mainly in response to the Tribunal’s questions), the applicant gave the following information about his efforts to prepare for the lodgement of a protection visa application to date.

    §  The applicant indicated that [an Organisation] manager had earlier promised to help him apply for a protection visa. At hearing, the Tribunal asked about the [Organisation] person who had promised the applicant to assist him with a protection visa application. He gave a first name but said that he did not have their details or have a direct number. The applicant said vaguely that the [Organisation] knows him well; at other times, he referred to the difficulty in reaching the correct persons, because it is a large organisation.

    §  The Tribunal noted (from the delegate’s decision record, and the applicant’s earlier oral evidence) that on 13 September 2023, he had informed the Department of his plan to apply for a substantive visa. It queried why he had not pursued this with the [Organisation] so far, and in any event by 24 November 2023. In reply, the applicant said that he had lost his telephone and, with it, access to his social media passwords (and presumably his contacts). He said that he had only recently managed to obtain another telephone.

    -   He said that he had has since tried to contact his [Organisation] contacts via their switchboard, without success to date.

    -   The applicant said that his cousin had sent him a message via social media (Facebook), but he had not replied.

    §  The applicant submitted to the Tribunal a list showing his attempts to contact the [Organisation] in Melbourne, from 1:00pm on Monday 4 December 2023 to late on Wednesday 6 December 2023. These were telephone calls to the central switchboard and other published telephone numbers.

    §  At hearing, the applicant alluded, directly and indirectly, to various factors that affected his failure to comply with previous undertakings in the past, and/or to follow up on his stated intention (as of 13 September 2023) to apply for a protection visa. These included his lack of English, his lack of familiarity with immigration law, his unsettled status (including periods of homelessness), his mental health, and his loss of his mobile telephone and other belongings.

26. The applicant addressed his future intentions, and responded to the delegate’s concerns, as follows:

    §  He wrote that that after his release from immigration detention, he plans to ‘immediately find’ an immigration lawyer or agent, or visit the [Organisation] in person, to seek assistance in preparing and lodging a protection visa ‘to maintain [his] immigration status in Australia’.

    §  He also wrote: ‘I can visit the organisations in person to seek help from the [Organisations] as well’.

    §  He reiterated at hearing that, in order to do these things, he first needed a bridging visa. It had proved difficult to make any such arrangements whilst in immigration detention.

    §  The Tribunal asked whether the applicant had turned his mind to any statement of claims relating to a protection visa, or the kind of evidence that he may want to seek to support it. He said that he had not yet considered such things.

    §  He indicated that at the time of application, he had still intended to apply for a protection visa, but decided to first obtain a bridging visa and to prepare and lodge a protection visa application once he was in the community.

    -   In response to the Tribunal’s questions, he said that he knew [an Organisation] manager by their first name, and he was well-known to the organisation. However, he had lost that person’s number. Recent attempts to contact them via the general switchboard have not succeeded. The applicant provided a printout showing telephone calls to [Organisation] Melbourne office numbers from Monday 4 December 2023 to late Wednesday 6 December 2023.

    -   When asked whether he had spoken to his case manager, or made any other enquiries as to who might be able to help him with a protection visa application while in detention, he reiterated his wish to first obtain a bridging visa.

    §  The applicant said that he had spoken to his case manager about making a protection visa application, including from immigration detention if he is not granted a bridging visa. Asked whether he had made any preparations for lodging a protection visa, such as writing a statement of claims or gathering evidence, the applicant replied that he had not.

27. The Tribunal, drawing on the delegate’s decision record, noted that the applicant had previously been granted a Bridging E visa on the basis of making a student visa application, but had not acted on this. He had also been granted four  Bridging E visas on departure grounds. In each instance, the applicant had obtained bridging visas, yet failed to act on the undertakings made in association with them. The Tribunal put to him that his past migration history, as well as his lack of demonstrated resolve in relation to a future protection visa application, might cause it to doubt that he will apply for a protection visa if granted a bridging visa. He did not respond to these observations.

28. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s immediate goal is to obtain a bridging visa and that his stated intention to apply for a protection visa within a reasonable period is not genuine. It takes into account that the applicant has made similar undertakings in the past (in relation to a student visa application and to depart Australia), but has failed to comply with them, for various reasons. The applicant’s lack of preparation for lodging a protection visa application is also striking. His focus on the [Organisation] acting

29. Having regard to the applicant’s claims and evidence, as presented to the Department and the Tribunal, the It flagged its concern that the applicant’s immediate goal was to obtain a bridging visa, and that he may not have a genuine intention to lodge a protection visa application within a reasonable timeframe; and/or that he did not have the resources (such as material support or access to advice) to do so.

30. The Tribunal is not satisfied that, at the time of application, the applicant has made, or would have made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted in Australia.

31. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.050.212(3).

    Acceptable arrangements to depart Australia

1. Subclause 050.212(2) is met if the Minister, or the Tribunal on review, is satisfied that the applicant is making, or is the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. ‘Acceptable arrangements’ is not defined in the Regulations. The Departmental guidelines (PAM3), whilst not binding on the Tribunal, nevertheless provide some guidance: Chenv MIMIA [2001] FCA 285 (Chen) at [26] and Lin v MIMIA [2001] FCA 283 (Lin) at [26]. It is also open to consider whether the applicant’s intentions in making any arrangements to depart, were genuine (Lin at [30]).

2. As noted in the delegate’s decision record, and discussed at hearing, the applicant has in the past (December 2020, May 2023 and June 2023) been granted a total of four Bridging E visas on departure grounds. However, he has more recently advised the Department, and confirmed at hearing, that there are no arrangements in place for his departure, and that he now intends to remain in Australia.

3. As such, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of application the applicant was making or was the subject of acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.050.212(2).

   Judicial review, merits review, s 137K revocation

4. Subclause 050.212(3A) is met if the applicant or the Minister has applied for judicial review of a decision to refuse the applicant a substantive visa of a type that can be granted while in Australia, and the judicial review proceedings have not been completed.

5. Subclause 050.212(4) is met if:

   (a)the applicant has applied for judicial review of a decision in relation to a substantive visa (other than a decision to refuse the visa); or

   (aa)the Minister has applied for judicial review of a decision in relation to the applicant’s substantive visa application (other than a decision relating to refuse the visa); or

   (b)the applicant has applied for merits review of a decision to cancel a visa; or

   (ba)the applicant has applied under s 137K for revocation of the cancellation of a visa; or

   (bb)the applicant has applied for merits review of a decision under s 137L not to revoke the cancellation of a visa; or

   (c)the Minister (or Tribunal) is satisfied that the applicant will make an application of a kind referred to in cl 050.212(4)(b), (ba) or (bb)

   (d)the applicant has applied for judicial review of the validity of a law that affects their eligibility to apply for a substantive visa or their entitlement to be granted or continue to hold a substantive visa.

6. Subclause 050.212(4AA) is met if the applicant is a member of the family unit of a person whose substantive visa application is the subject of the judicial review proceedings mentioned in cl 050.212(3A)(b), (4)(a), (4)(aa) or (4)(d), that other person is not a party to a representative proceeding, and the applicant made a combined substantive visa application with that other person’s application.

7. Subclause 050.212(9) is met if a decision to refuse the applicant (or a member of the family unit who has made a combined application) a Class BC or BI visa is the subject of valid judicial review proceedings that have not been completed, and the applicant (or member of the family unit) does not satisfy cl 010.211(6)(c) for the grant of a Bridging A (Class WA) visa.

8. There are no claims or evidence that the applicant meets the requirements on the grounds of a judicial review, merits review or a s.137K revocation application. Accordingly, he does not meet cl.050.212(3A), cl.050.212(4), cl.050.212(4AA) or cl.050.212(9).

   Consequential cancellation (review/revocation of primary cancellation)

9. Subclause 050.212(5) is met if the applicant held a visa that was cancelled under s 140(1) or (3) because another person’s visa was cancelled, and that other person has applied for review of their visa cancellation decision (or alternatively, the Tribunal is satisfied the other person will make such an application).

10. Subclause 050.212(5A) is met if the applicant held a visa that was cancelled under s 140(1), (2) or (3) because another person’s visa was cancelled under s 137J, and that other person has applied for revocation of their visa cancellation under s 137K or has applied for merits review of a non-revocation decision made under s 137L (or alternatively, the Tribunal is satisfied the other person will make such an application).

11. There are no claims or evidence that the applicant meets the requirements on the grounds of an application for review or revocation of a visa cancellation. Accordingly, he does not meet cl.050.212(5) or cl.050.212(5A).

    Court declaration / review of citizenship decision

12. Subclause 050.212(4AAA) is met if the applicant has applied for a declaration from a Court that the Migration Act does not apply to the applicant, or has applied for judicial review or merits review of a decision made in relation to the applicant under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), and those proceedings have not been completed.

13. Subclause 050.212(4AB) is met if the applicant is a member of the immediate family (as defined under reg 1.12AA) of a person who meets the requirements of cl 050.212(4AAA), or is a brother or sister (who has not turned 18) of a person who meets the requirements of cl 050.212(4AAA) and who has not turned 18.

14. There are no claims or evidence that the applicant meets the requirements on the grounds of an application for a Court declaration or a review of a citizenship decision. Accordingly, he does not meet cl 050.212(4AAA) or cl.050.212(4AB).

    Ministerial intervention

15. Subclause 050.212(5B) is met if the applicant is a person to whom s 48A of the Act applies, and the applicant has made a request to the Minister to determine under s 48B that s 48A does not apply. There must not have previously been such a request under s 48B in relation to the applicant, or a request to the Minister for the exercise of the Minister’s power under ss 345, 351 or 417 of the Act.

16. Subclause 050.212(6) is met if the applicant is the subject of a decision that relates to a visa application made in Australia, or a visa cancellation and has made a request to the Minister to substitute a more favourable decision under ss 345, 351 or 417 of the Act. The decision in question must be a decision for which the Minister has the power to substitute a decision under ss 345, 351 or 417, and there must not have previously been such a request, or a request for a determination under s 48B of the Act. _

17. Subclause 050.212(6AA) is met if the Minister has substituted a decision under ss 345, 351 or 417 of the Act, but the visa has not been granted because of a visa cap in operation under s 85 of the Act.

18. Subclause 050.212(6B) is met if the applicant has an outstanding request to the Minister under ss 345, 351 or 417 of the Act made before 1 July 2009, and holds, or has held, a Bridging E visa granted before 1 July 2009 on the basis of the applicant meeting cl 050.212(6A) or, for visa applications made on or after 14 September 2009, cl 050.212(6) or (6A).

19. There are no claims or evidence to suggest that the applicant meets the requirements on the grounds of a Ministerial intervention request. Accordingly, he does not meet cl.050.212(5B), cl.050.212(6), cl.050.212(6AA) or cl.050.212(6B).

    Compelling need to work

20. Subclause 050.212(6A) is met if the applicant holds a Bridging E visa that was granted on the basis of meeting cl 050.212(6AA), the applicant is the subject of a favourable exercise of the Ministerial power under ss 345, 351 or 417 of the Act, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has a compelling need to work.

21. Subclause 050.212(8) is met if the applicant holds a Bridging E visa that was granted as a result of a valid application for a substantive visa that could be granted onshore and is subject to condition 8101, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has a compelling need to work.

22. As the applicant does not hold a Bridging E visa, he does not cl 050.212(6A) or (8).

    Criminal Detention

23. Subclause 050.212(7) is met if the applicant is in criminal detention, and no criminal justice stay certificate or warrant is in force. A person is in ‘criminal detention’ if he or she is serving a term of imprisonment, including periodic detention, following conviction for an offence, or is in prison on remand. However, a person is not in criminal detention where they are subject to a community service order, on parole after serving part of a term of imprisonment, or on bail awaiting trial (reg 1.09). Periodic detention is defined in reg 1.03 to mean a system of restriction of liberty by which periods at liberty alternate with periods in prison.

24. The applicant is not in criminal detention. Accordingly, the applicant he does not meet cl 050.212(7).

    Conclusion: cl.050.212

25. As the applicant does not meet any of the requirements in cl.050.212(2)-(9), he does not meet cl.050.212(1). He therefore does not satisfy cl.050.212 at the time of application.

    Whether the applicant continues to satisfy the time of application criteria - cl 050.221

26. Clause 050.221 requires the applicant to continue to satisfy the requirements of cl 050.211 and 050.212 at the time of decision.

27. As the applicant does not meet any of the requirements of cl.050.212 at the time of application, it follows that he does not continue to meet cl.050.212 at the time of decision. He therefore does not meet cl.050.221.

    Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl 050.223

28. 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.

29. There was some discussion at hearing about the applicant’s compliance with conditions 8101 (No Work) and 8564 (No Criminal Conduct). He indicated that, if granted a bridging visa, he would go to his cousin’s house and ask to stay there; reduce his expenses to a minimum; and, with the knowledge that he has now gained about support services in Australia, approach the [Organisation] and other charities for help with basic expenses, including through food cards and transport cards. In relation to his past criminal conduct, the applicant said that in the past, he had not properly understood Australian law and had mixed with the wrong people. His homelessness and mental health had exacerbated his problems. The Tribunal observed that the applicant was receiving medical treatment and basic support while in immigration detention, and that he appeared poorly prepared for any release from detention.

30. Given the Tribunal’s conclusions that the applicant does not meet the primary criteria under cl.050.212, it is unnecessary for it to consider his compliance with the conditions of a briding visa, if granted.

    Conclusion

31. For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.

32. The visa application is also an application for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa. The applicant is not a relevant eligible non-citizen as set out in cl 051.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and therefore does not meet the requirements for the grant of that visa.

    DECISION

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

    James Silva
    Member