2412476 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by the applicant. The applicant sought the visa on the basis of intending to depart Australia. The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically whether they would abide by any conditions imposed on it.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on the visa if it were granted. In assessing this, the Tribunal considered the applicant's past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, mitigating circumstances, and any contrition shown. The Tribunal also had to determine which conditions, if any, should be imposed on the visa, referencing Division 050.6 of the Regulations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a history of lengthy periods of unlawful residence in Australia and had been employed for cash payments. While the applicant stated an intention to depart and expressed fear of loan sharks, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these factors sufficiently demonstrated a likelihood of compliance with visa conditions. The Tribunal noted that even if a security amount were required, it would not necessarily ensure compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 050.223.

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