2407159 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on the visa if granted, specifically focusing on the mandatory condition prohibiting work in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine if it was satisfied, pursuant to clause 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, that the applicant would abide by the conditions of a Bridging E visa. This involved considering the applicant's past immigration history, including any breaches of immigration laws, the significance and wilfulness of those breaches, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition demonstrated. The Tribunal also had to consider which conditions, if any, should be imposed on the visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that to satisfy clause 050.223, it must be convinced of the applicant's future compliance with visa conditions. In this instance, the Tribunal noted the applicant's admission of having worked in Australia since 2012, despite not having permission to do so, stating it was necessary for survival. The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's assertion that her girlfriend could provide financial support, citing inconsistencies in the partner's identification and a lack of substantiating financial evidence. The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied the applicant would abide by the condition prohibiting work, regardless of any security that might be imposed.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa.