2400067 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, subclass 050, made in conjunction with an application for a protection visa. The applicant sought review of the Department's decision not to grant the bridging visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on the Bridging E visa, as required by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This assessment involved considering the applicant's past conduct, including any previous breaches of migration laws, the significance and wilfulness of those breaches, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition demonstrated. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa, subclass 051.

The Tribunal applied the principles from *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289, which guide the assessment of an applicant's likelihood to abide by visa conditions. The Tribunal considered the applicant's immigration history, including a Community Corrections Order and a warrant to imprison, which indicated a history of criminal behaviour. Despite submissions regarding the applicant's cost of living and limited financial support from family, no documentary evidence or supporting statements were provided to demonstrate a commitment to abiding by visa conditions. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions, including the mandatory condition not to engage in work, and therefore clause 050.223 was not met.

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