2506453 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 844

2506453 (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 844 (4 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:TGMS
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2506453

Tribunal:General Member J Papalia
Place:Perth
Date: 4 March 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review

Statement made on 04 March 2025 at 09:45am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – complying with the visa conditions – failure to regularise immigration status – intention to apply for a substantive visa – undisclosed criminal record – period of unlawful residence – funds for the visa application charge – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 14, 31, 41, 65, 73, 74, 189, 194, 195, 338, 367
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 050.211-050.213, 050.221-050.223, 050.613, 050.617; rr 2.10, 2.20, 4.27
CASES
AKW22 v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] FCAFC 71; (2023) 297 FCR 650
Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (2002) 70 ALD 289
Bainbridge v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1080
DBB16 v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] FCA 783
Liu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 725
Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 483
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The applicant is [an age]-year-old Tongan national who seeks review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 14 February 2025 to refuse to grant him a Bridging E visa under ss 65 and 73 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act).[1] This is a “reviewable migration decision” under s 338(4)(a) of the Migration Act. Consequently, and because the applicant sought review on 20 February 2025, the Tribunal is required to make its decision on the review by 4 March 2025 absent written consent from the applicant to extend that period.[2] For the following reasons, the Tribunal has determined that the correct decision in this matter is to affirm the reviewable decision.
[1] Section 73 of the Migration Act being facilitative of any decision made to grant of a bridging visa.
[2] See Migration Act, ss 367(1); Migration Regulations 1994, reg 4.27. Monday, 3 February 2025 was a public holiday in Western Australia.
BACKGROUND
On 12 June 2017, the applicant applied for a Temporary Work (International Relations) visa with the assistance of his national government, and to work in the seasonal worker programme in Queensland for no more than 6 months.
Because the applicant had a criminal record in Tonga, consisting of bodily harm committed in May 2006, and two offences of “drunkenness” in September 2014 and March 2016, the applicant was asked by the Minister’s Department to provide an explanation. He subsequently provided an affidavit sworn 7 July 2017 in Tonga, where he relevantly indicated that:
[2] That I am applying for working visas under the Seasonal working program in [Town 1], Queensland, Australia …
[3] That I am married to one namely [[wife’s name]] with [number] children of our own. I am the provider and the only breadwinner of my family, therefore my wife is consent and agreeable for me to travel to Australia while she remains here in Tonga with our children.
[4] That I have never travelled to Australia under this seasonal fruit-picking temporarily working program, however I have been acquaint with the procedures and also been informed of the every conditions if ever I breached the visa’s requirements.
[explanation of criminal record]
[8] That I am in deep remorse and regretful of being convicted by the above mentioned offences as I understand the situation of my Criminal Records will affect my application.
[9] That I am asking the Australian Immigration Attaché to grant me this opportunity to have a temporarily working visas and to vary any disturbance of my criminal records on my lodging application as I confirm on oath that I will return back to Tonga prior the expiration of my visa and I also have responsibilities towards my wife and children whom will be remaining here in Tonga while I am away.
The applicant was granted the Temporary Work visa on 24 July 2017, including that he work with the identified proposed employer (sponsor) in the visa application and that “[t]he holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a protection visa, while the holder remains in Australia” (condition 8503). This visa ceased on 30 November 2017.
[In] September 2020, the applicant had an interaction with NSW Police where Departmental records indicate that he was verbally cautioned on the telephone by ABF officers regarding his status as an unlawful non-citizen but was not detained by NSW Police in accordance with s 189(1) of the Migration Act.
Two days later, [in] September 2020, the applicant sought the grant of a Bridging Visa E. He indicated in that visa application that he wanted to apply for a substantive visa, namely a partner visa, and that “[d]ue to financial hardship, I have not had the money to apply for the appropriate visa, I am not in the position to commence the application for Partners Visa – on shore”. He disclosed that he had a pending court appearance for “[specified charge]” and falsely declared that he did not have a prior criminal history.
At the Department’s request, the applicant subsequently provided a National Police Certificate dated [in] October 2020, which indicated that he then had a pending charge in [Court 1] for “[specified charge]” and had previously been convicted in March 2020, without further penalty, of [specified charge].
On 17 February 2021, the applicant was granted a Bridging Visa E, of 3 months’ duration (expiring 17 May 2021). No work, no study, reporting and not to engage in criminal conduct conditions were imposed on that visa.
[In] May 2021, the Department wrote to the applicant by email reminding him that his Bridging Visa E was about to cease and to regularise his immigration status or he could face “serious consequences including immigration detention and removal from Australia”. The applicant did not do so and once again became an unlawful non-citizen within the meaning of s 14 of the Migration Act.
The delegate’s decision record indicates that in June 2024, the applicant was remanded into state custody on domestic violence charges and breach of bail offences. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of [term] imprisonment for the domestic violence offences in August 2024. This is consistent with the applicant’s statements to those who interviewed him in January and February 2025.
The applicant was detained under s 189(1) of the Migration Act on [a date in] January 2025 when he was released on an NSW parole order. The detaining officer considered, on his own motion, whether to grant the applicant a bridging visa but decided the applicant would not meet the criteria because of the applicant’s prior dealings with the Department and the applicant’s criminal history and lack of financial resources.
In the located person interview, the applicant identified a partner and child living in Perth, [Partner A] and [Child A]. The interview notes also record that the applicant was provided with what is described as the “Very Important Notice – VIN”, in English. The Tribunal notes that the VIN sets out information detainees must be made aware of, under s 194 of the Migration Act, such as the detainee’s rights to apply for visas and to access legal or consular assistance.[3]
[3] Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3): Compliance and Case Resolution – Compliance – Immigration detention and the powers to detain – item 50.
The applicant had an interview with a detention status resolution officer (SRO) at [a named] Immigration Detention Centre [in] January 2025. SROs are officers of the Immigration Department that keep, or cause to be kept, an unlawful non-citizen in immigration detention by reason of their regular review of detainee’s circumstances.[4] The applicant relevantly maintained his stated intention to apply for a substantive visa (being either a protection visa or a partner visa). The interview notes also record that the SRO verbally explained the effect of s 195 of the Migration Act to the applicant, including potential extension of the time in which the applicant could apply for a visa (other than a protection visa or a bridging visa) under s 195(2)(b) of the Act.
[4] See DBB16 v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] FCA 783 at [29]-[31]; AKW22 v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] FCAFC 71; (2023) 297 FCR 650 at [57].
To date, the applicant has not made application for a substantive visa.
On 11 February 2025, the applicant applied for the Bridging Visa E which is the subject of this review. He did so with the assistance of [Ms B], who identified in the application that they were “engaged” and that they both lived at addresses in NSW. The visa application relevantly indicated that it was sought so that the applicant could work and then apply for a partner visa. The visa application falsely did not disclose the applicant’s previous criminal history; however this appears to have been entirely drafted by [Ms B] rather than the applicant, notwithstanding that it was lodged using the applicant’s email address and ImmiAccount details.
The delegate’s decision record records that that the Detention Review Officer (DRO) was informed of the Bridging Visa E application on 12 February 2025, which is an application validity requirement when applicants are in immigration detention imposed by reg 2.10A and Sch 1 item 1305(3)(c) of the Regulations.
The delegate conducted an interview with the applicant on 13 February 2025. The applicant disclosed in that interview that [Ms B] is someone he has a relationship with, in addition to [Partner A], and that [Ms B] was simply trying to help him get out of detention.
The applicant confirmed to the delegate that he sought his release so that he could work and then ultimately apply for a partner visa, but that he was not sure who his ultimate “sponsor” would be because both [Ms B] and [Partner A] were Australian citizens.
The delegate refused to grant the applicant the bridging visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the time of application criteria in cl 050.212 to Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations. The Tribunal notes that the delegate also considered the applicant’s eligibility for a Subclass 051 Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa. However, the applicant has only really applied for the general Subclass 050 Bridging Visa E and could not properly meet the criteria for the Subclass 051 visa.
HEARING AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has considered documentary material in this case sourced from:
·Departmental files [number] (Temporary Work International Relations Visa File), [number] (BVE File No 1), [number] (BVE File No 2); and
·the Tribunal file for this application.
The documents comprise (but are not limited to):
·Application for a Temporary Work (International Relations) visa dated 12 June 2017 (with annexures)
·Affidavit made by the Applicant in support of a visa application sworn on 7 July 2017;
·Criminal History Information from the Magistrates Court of Tonga dated [in] June 2017;
·Notification of grant of an international relations (subclass 403) visa dated 24 July 2017;
·Application for a Bridging Visa E dated [in] September 2020;
·National Police Certificate (AFP) dated [in] October 2020;
·Notification of grant of a Bridging Visa E dated 17 February 2021;
·Email to the Applicant from NSW Compliance Status Resolution dated [in] May 2021;
·Field Operation Located Person Interview record dated [in] January 2025;
·Detention Client Interview Record dated [in] January 2025;
·Application for a Bridging Visa E dated 11 February 2025 (with annexures);
·Delegate’s record of interview dated 13 February 2025;
·Delegate’s reasons for decision dated 14 February 2025 and associated notification material;
·Application for review lodged 19 February 2025 (including submission from [Ms B]); and
·Applicant’s Movement Record dated 20 February 2025.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 February 2025 by audio-visual means to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tonga and English languages. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was advised, in simple terms, of his right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination prior to his giving evidence.[5] He was also provided an opportunity to respond to matters put to him and to provide answers to questions asked by the Tribunal which were directed at the relevant considerations below.
[5] See Bainbridge v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1080, [64]-[65].
The Tribunal put the relevant visa criteria to the applicant, including that the only apparent basis that he would meet cl 050.212 was on the ground set out in sub-clause (3)(b) that he would apply for a substantive visa.
The applicant testified that [Ms B] applied for the visa on his behalf. He said that he was told by Home Affairs when he was detained that he could apply for either a protection visa or a partner visa. He said that he was told that he could apply for a partner visa within 7 days from [a date in] January 2025, but he did not know what to do with the paperwork he was given and that there was some delay in being provided that paperwork.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had the $9,095 required to pay the visa application charge for a combined partner visa application. He confirmed that he did not and that this was why he was applying for the bridging visa.
The Tribunal asked the applicant who he would be saying is his “partner” on any application, the applicant testified that it would be [Partner A]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the definition of “de facto partner” in s 5CB of the Migration Act required “mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others” and took the applicant to the multiple references to different women in the documentary material. He said that his “wife” in Tonga was just a de facto relationship. So far as the recent references to Mesdames [Ms B] and [Partner A] were concerned, [Partner A] is his child’s mother and [Ms B] was just trying to help him given that he had been detained.
After that exchange, the applicant said that he needed help to make a protection visa application. The Tribunal summarised the essential criteria for a protection visa to him. The applicant told the Tribunal that there was a familial dispute in Tonga between his family and another one, which has been generational in duration and which has involved murder or killings, and that when he was recently in prison one of his cousin’s was killed. He said that he did not have immediate family in Tonga, and that his sisters and grandparents are in Australia. When asked about his [children] in Tonga, he said they are living with their mother on some of the more isolated islands in the Kingdom.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his most recent imprisonment in New South Wales. The applicant testified that he was in prison because he failed to attend court when he was required to do so, because he was not aware of the requirement to appear. He said that he had pleaded not guilty because the allegations were not true. However, because he failed to attend Court, he was convicted in his absence. The applicant identified that the complainant for these DV charges was [Ms C], a “friend” and person with whom he has another child.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was concerned that he would not comply with any of the mandatory or discretionary visa conditions which may be imposed on his Bridging Visa E. It noted that the applicant had not complied with some of his prior visa conditions, including reporting requirements, limited or no work conditions and the condition not engage in criminal conduct. The applicant testified that he had time to reflect in prison and immigration detention and that he now regrets all of things that he has done. He said that he had done some courses in prison including spiritual fellowship. He cried and told the Tribunal that he was a changed man and sought another chance. He said that he was the oldest child, and that his younger siblings were all in Australia and that they had seen the change in his life.
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that he had never had substantive permission to remain in Australia. That his previous bridging visa was granted for a particular purpose, and that the applicant did not seem to have done anything about his claimed fear to return to Tonga or to prosecute his desire to obtain a partner visa.
In terms of whether the applicant would comply with any visa conditions, the Tribunal put to the applicant that his prior criminal history, including apparent non-compliance with bail and with visa conditions demonstrated that he would be unlikely to comply with any reporting or no work conditions in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant testified that he clearly understood what he was required to do moving forward, in terms of applying for a substantive visa and complying with any conditions.
The Tribunal granted the applicant leave to file any further supporting evidence in respect of his application by 28 February 2025. The Tribunal subsequently received the following:
·Email dated 26 February 2025 containing a statement of support from [Ms D], who describes herself as the applicant’s “fiancé” and the mother of their daughter (born in [year]) and notwithstanding the applicant’s apparent relationships with Mesdames [Partner A], [Ms B] and [Ms C].
·Letter of Support from [Ms B] sent by email on 28 February 2025.
CONSIDERATION OF THE VISA CRITERIA
The criteria for a bridging visa are prescribed under s 31(3) of the Migration Act and contained in the Migration Regulations.
Schedule 1 provides for the application validity requirements and the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant made a valid application for the visa.
Schedule 2 provides for the criteria to be satisfied (i) at the time of application and (ii) the time of decision on the application.
Time of application criteria
There are two criterions which must be satisfied at the time of visa application (and at the time of decision[6]): cls 050.211, 050.212.
[6] See cl 050.221.
As noted by the delegate, the applicant satisfies cl 050.211 because he is an unlawful non-citizen who is not an “eligible non-citizen” of the kind set out in sub-regs 2.20(7)-(11), (17)-(19) of the Migration Regulations.
One of the critical issues in this review is whether the applicant satisfies cl 050.212, specifically sub-clauses (1) and (3)(b), which relevantly provide that:
(1) The applicant meets the requirements of subclause (3)…
…
(3) An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if: …(b) the Minister is satisfied that the applicant will apply, in Australia, within a period allowed by the Minister for the purpose, for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the applicant is in Australia.
The applicant otherwise cannot sensibly satisfy any of the balance of cl 050.212 because he is not planning to depart Australia, has not applied for a substantive visa, including where there are extant merits or judicial review proceedings regarding visa decision-making or Australian citizenship (including as a member of the same family as someone who has equivalent proceedings) and he is not in criminal detention.

The Tribunal notes that the meaning of cl 050.212(3)(b) is not without controversy and that the term “will apply… within a period allowed by the Minister for the purpose” could refer to either the period prescribed by s 195 of the Migration Act in circumstances where an applicant is in immigration detention or to a further period stipulated by the decision-maker (including the Tribunal) either through the length of the bridging visa granted or by conditions attached to it: see Liu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FMCA 725 at [52]-[55]; Re Telefoni (migration) [2024] AATA 3995 at [20]; PAM3: Compliance and case resolution – Program visas – Bridging E visas – “Will make an application (050.212(3)(b))”.
There are two factual matters which are presently fatal to whether the applicant would likely be able to make a substantive visa application in the form of a partner visa within a reasonable period of time: he does not have access to the necessary funds to pay the visa application charge for that visa and he had condition 8503 (no further stay) imposed on a previous visa and has not sought a waiver of this under s 41(2A) of the Migration Act. Moreover, he has previously obtained a Bridging Visa E in February 2021 on the basis that he would apply for a partner visa, but he did not do so.
This then leaves the question of whether the applicant would be likely to apply for a protection visa in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant can apply for a protection visa at any time. What tends to suggest that he is not likely to do so soon (if released from immigration detention) is the fact that he arrived in Australia in July 2017, having sworn on oath that he would return to Tonga in November 2017 and has failed to regularise his status in any substantive way since then, including by seeking protection. Moreover, the presently articulated claim to fear returning to Tonga appears to be based on long-standing family issues in Tonga which predate his travel to Australia. Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility (beyond an obvious desire to remain in Australia), the Tribunal is prepared to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt regarding the prospect that he may make a valid application for a protection visa (as opposed to the merits of that application).
The applicant gave the Tribunal the impression that he fully understood the precarious nature of his presence in Australia because of his detention under s 189(1) of the Migration Act and the Tribunal notes that the protection claims which were briefly articulated at the review hearing included an escalation of concern whilst the applicant was remanded in state custody in 2024.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets cl 050.212(3)(b).
Time of decision criteria
The ‘time of decision’ criteria which are relevant to this case are cls 050.221, 050.222 and 050.223.
For the reasons set out at paragraphs [37] to [45] above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the time of application criteria. He therefore continues to satisfy those requirements at the time of the Tribunal’s decision for the purposes of cl 050.221.
The applicant was interviewed by the delegate, who is authorised by the Secretary to conduct interviews of that kind, on 13 February 2025 and therefore satisfies cl 050.222(1).
The determinative question then is whether cl 050.223 is met. This requires the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant will abide by the visa conditions imposed (if any). That is an opinion about the likely conduct of the applicant.[7]
[7] See Applicant VAAN of 2001 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 197; (2002) 70 ALD 289 at [16].
In that context, the Tribunal must first establish which mandatory conditions are attached to the visa (if any) and then consider imposing discretionary conditions by taking into account the applicant’s circumstances and the Government’s stated policy of promoting engagement with the Department and achieving immigration status resolution.[8]
[8] See PAM3 – Compliance and Case Resolution – Program visas – Bridging E visas – “Whether applicant will abide by conditions”.
Departmental policy[9] recommends that decision-makers consider the following factors in forming the opinion about likely future conduct and the imposition of discretionary conditions:
[9] PAM3 – Compliance and Case Resolution – Program visas – Bridging E visas – “Relevant Considerations”.
Decision makers need to consider such factors as whether the applicant has breached migration law balanced against the applicant's current level of cooperation with the department. This includes but is not limited to:
-    whether the applicant is a previous removee/deportee
-    whether the applicant has absconded from immigration detention or other custody
-    the applicant's conduct during any period of immigration detention
-    whether the applicant has committed breaches of migration law
-    the extent to which the applicant has complied with the conditions of previous bridging visa(s)
-    whether the applicant has had a visa cancelled on the grounds of not complying with conditions or providing false information to the department
-    whether the applicant has had a visa cancelled or a substantive visa application refused in Australia
-    whether the applicant has refused to sign or assist in obtaining travel documentation or
-    the strength of the applicant's ties to the Australian community.
If a visa holder fails to comply with a condition attached to their visa, the visa may be liable for cancellation under s116(1)(b) - refer to PAM3: Act - Visa cancellation - General visa cancellation powers (s109, s116, s128, s134B and s140).
Although any combination or number of conditions may be imposed on the grant of a BVE 050, it is policy that, as a minimum, the following conditions be imposed on the initial grant of a BVE 050:
-    8101 (no work) and
-    8201 (no study or training for more than 3 months) or 8207 (no study or training while in Australia) and
-    8401 (must report at time and place specified by the Minister) and
-    8506 (must notify the department at least 2 days in advance of any change of address).
As a matter of policy the above is to especially apply (irrespective of 050.617) if the applicant has not maintained contact with the department in regularising their status and becomes unlawful by failure to maintain their immigration status. If the applicant subsequently wishes to apply to have the conditions changed they will need to demonstrate a 'compelling need to work' and/or an 'acceptable reason for delay' (protection visa applicants).
If the application of conditions is discretionary care should be taken not to impose conflicting conditions (for example, 8101 and 8104, 8201 and 8207).
However, this policy should not be applied arbitrarily; …
The hypothesis upon which the applicant satisfies cls 050.212 and 050.221 is that he will apply for a protection visa. Clause 050.613A(1) of Sch 2 of the Regulations relevantly provides in those circumstances that, unless the applicant is in class of persons specified by the Minister in writing (namely under Legislative Instrument 15/026 dated 1 May 2015, being any person granted a Bridging Visa E under s 195A of the Migration Act), condition 8101 must be imposed on the bridging visa. This condition relevantly provides that the holder must not engage in work in Australia.
The Tribunal may otherwise, and by discretion,[10] impose any of the following conditions: 8201 (no study for more than 3 months), 8207 (no studies or training), 8401 (report as directed), 8505 (live at specified address), 8506 (notify Immigration at least 2 working days in advance of any change of address), 8507 (payment of, arrangement to pay, the costs of immigration detention), 8508 (make valid application within specified time), 8510 (provide a copy of an in force passport or obtain one), 8511 (provide evidence to Immigration of a ticket to travel to another country that would allow the applicant entry), 8512 (leave Australia by a specified date) and 8548 (not engage in studies or training for more than 4 months).
[10] See Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 483 at [42]-[45].
In the Tribunal’s view and having regard to Departmental policy and the applicant’s prior immigration history summarised above, it would be appropriate to impose discretionary conditions 8401, 8505, 8506 and 8508, in addition to the mandatory imposition of 8101. Relevantly, the applicant has previously failed to comply with conditions 8101, 8401, 8506 and 8564 imposed in February 2021. The Tribunal does not see any need to prohibit or limit study because there is no apparent relevance for these conditions to the applicant’s circumstances.
The question then is whether these conditions will be complied with if they stand alone and without security? The applicant was an unlawful non-citizen between 30 November 2017 and 17 February 2021 (1,175 days) and from 17 May 2021 until the present (approximately 1,380 days). He acquired that status intentionally, by failing to apply for another visa. He appears to have a pattern of problematic behaviour, stemming from his life in Tonga until the present, and involving violence and disregard for the law. The risk of the applicant going “underground” for a third time if released on a bridging visa would seem to be relatively high, notwithstanding the applicant’s stated change to the Tribunal after his recent period of imprisonment. Whilst the Tribunal infers that the applicant may still be subject to the supervision of Corrective Services in NSW at least for a short period this year, given that he appears to be on a parole order, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the applicant will comply with these visa conditions because of his apparent propensity to ignore similar requirements in the past. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges [Ms D’s] reference, her letter appears to be made without knowledge of the applicant’s criminal history, other relationships and past contraventions of the Migration Act and Regulations or indeed the nature of the visa applied for. The same could be said for [Ms B’s] letter and the Tribunal notes that their “relationship” would seem to have commenced when the applicant was in the custody of NSW. Whilst there are at least two or three claimed minor offspring in Australia, these children do not seem to have provided an incentive for the applicant to be compliant with his obligations in the past, and the Tribunal has serious doubts about the level of the applicant’s actual involvement in their lives in any event. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant also claims that the majority of his immediate family are in Australia and that he has nothing to go back to in Tonga. However, like his children and intimate relationships, these familial ties in Australia do not seem to have prevented the applicant from engaging in serious criminal conduct (namely domestic violence) and from continuing to live and work in Australia in flagrant defiance of Australia’s migration system.
The Tribunal must then consider whether the conditions it would impose would be complied with if security were taken? The applicant has no capacity to raise a security. In any event, and for the same reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would comply with the visa conditions it would impose even if a substantial security were fixed and available.
Consequently, the Tribunal is not satisfied that cl 050.223 is met. The applicant therefore does not mee the time of decision criteria and the bridging visa E must therefore be refused.
In making that assessment, the Tribunal notes that the applicant can still apply for a protection visa in detention and that he may make further application for a bridging visa after 30 days have passed.[11] This period may allow the applicant to obtain some professional advice about his options and to collect and prepare further evidence in support of an application (if any).
[11] See Migration Act, s 74.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
Date(s) of hearing:26 February 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Self-represented