2528046 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1064

2528046 (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1064 (17 JUNE 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2528046
Tribunal:General Member A Stratigos
Place:Brisbane
Date:  17 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review

Statement made on 17 June 2025 at 11:58am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – compliance with condition – must not engage in criminal conduct – criminal convictions not recorded – domestic violence order – breaches of bail pending more charges – immigration detention due to errors made by previous agent – circumstances of offences – no genuine remorse, insight or participation in rehabilitation programs – Australian citizen partner’s financial circumstances – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 75, 367
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 051.211, 050.2, 050.617, 050.618, Schedule 8, condition 8564
CASE
Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (2002) 70 ALD 289
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 501K of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

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).
The applicant applied for the visa on 16 May 2025. 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 050.223.
The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 20 May 2025 on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant would comply with conditions imposed on the visa, namely condition 8564 – Must not engage in criminal conduct. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
S 367 requires that for bridging visa applications where an applicant is in immigration detention the Tribunal must decide and notify the applicant of the decision within 7 working days of the application being brought before the Tribunal. With the agreement of the applicant this period may be extended. On 4 June 2025 the Tribunal informed the applicant, via their representative, that the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) had not yet provided a copy of the applicant’s file to the Tribunal and sought the applicant’s consent to extend the period in which the Tribunal must make the decision; the applicant, via their representative, agreed to the period being extended.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E (class WE) visa (the visa).
The applicant is seeking to obtain the visa on the basis of having made a valid application for a substantive visa, namely a partner visa. The delegate found that the applicant met the relevant time of application criteria for the visa, there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that this finding was incorrect and accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that cl 050.211 and cl 050.212 was met at the time of application and continues to be met.
The issue in this case is whether if the bridging visa were granted to the applicant, he would abide by conditions imposed on it.
Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl 050.223
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.
When considering cl 050.223, the Tribunal must consider which conditions, if any, should be imposed and whether it is satisfied that the applicant would abide by those conditions. In deciding the question of whether the applicant would abide by conditions imposed, the Tribunal is to consider the likely conduct of the applicant. In that context, relevant considerations may include the applicant’s past immigration history, in particular any previous breaches of immigration laws, the significance of the migration laws that were breached, the wilfulness with which those laws had been breached, whether there were any mitigating circumstances justifying their breach and whether the applicant had shown any contrition for their unlawful conduct: Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) (2002) 70 ALD 289 at [15]-[16].
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions if security of a particular amount is required, the applicant meets cl 050.223. However, if not satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions, regardless of any security that may be imposed, cl 050.223 is not met.
In this case, clauses 050.617 and 050.618 apply because the applicant meets the criteria in 050.212(3) and the applicant is in immigration detention. These clauses prescribe that one or more of the following conditions may be imposed: 8101, 8104, 8116, 8201, 8207, 8401, 8402, 8505, 8506, 8507, 8508, 8510, 8511, 8512, 8548 and 8564. The delegate considered that if the visa is granted the following conditions should be imposed:
·8101 – No work
·8207 – No study
·8401 – Reporting
·8506 – Notify of change in address
·8564 – Must not engage in criminal conduct
In this case the imposition of conditions is discretionary, the Tribunal has considered which if any of the conditions in clauses 050.617 and 050.618 would be appropriate to be imposed. In considering which conditions ought to be imposed the Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s migration and personal history and conduct in Australia. The Tribunal concluded that imposing conditions 8401, 8506 and 8564 would be appropriate in these circumstances. The Tribunal finds that given the applicant’s migration history it is reasonable and appropriate for the applicant to update the Department as to any changes to his address and report as directed. The Tribunal finds that given the applicant’s criminal history, detailed below at [22], it is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances to impose condition 8564, being that he must not engage in criminal conduct.
Unlike the delegate the Tribunal has not considered 8101 or 8207 to be necessary. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may need work rights if in the community to support himself and does not see it necessary to impose condition 8101 which, as the applicant explained at hearing, may result in undue burden on his Australian citizen partner. The Tribunal also finds that it is unnecessary to impose condition 8207 should the applicant wish to engage in studies.
The applicant’s representative made submissions on the applicant’s behalf in writing and orally at the hearing, they also provided to the Tribunal the following documents in support of this application:
·QP9 relating to pending charges dated 14 May 2024
·Queensland Criminal History dated 14 May 2024
·Queensland Traffic Record dated 14 May 2024
·Bail Undertaking dated 7 September 2024
·Notification of refusal of the visa dated 20 May 2025
·Decision record of the delegate refusing the visa dated 20 May 2025
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal and gave oral evidence, and the Tribunal has before it a copy of the delegate’s decision and the delegate’s notes from their interview with the applicant.
The applicant is [age]-year-old man from Pakistan. He arrived in Australia in 2019 on a student visa, he has since obtained one further student visa and sought to obtain a graduate visa that was refused. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant was only detained due to errors made by a past migration agent which resulted in the applicant’s bridging visa expiring, and asserted that the applicant was not put into immigration detention due to his criminal history.
There is nothing before the Tribunal which suggests that the applicant has breached visa conditions in the past and he was able to give a clear account of his migration history up until his detention in March 2025. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s previous bridging visa expired, he then applied for a bridging visa on departure grounds the day following expiry of that prior bridging visa, accordingly, whilst the applicant did have a period of unlawfulness his bridging visa application was submitted and under consideration during that time and accordingly the Tribunal has not drawn any negative inferences from this period.
The applicant has applied for a partner visa and the Department have assessed the applicant’s partner visa application to be valid. The applicant claims that his parents reside in [a country]. He claims he and his partner have been together for around 1 year, his partner resides in Brisbane, and he has met her family. He claims his partner works in health care and earns around $1,500 per fortnight.
The applicant claims that if the visa was granted and contains a no work condition he would not work until such time that he can apply for permission to work, the applicant claims that his partner and his parents can support him until he obtains work rights. The applicant outlined various debts and expenses, including legal expenses to his criminal lawyer and migration lawyer, he also owes debts [in] Queensland, these debts/expenses total $13,000-$14,000. The applicant also claims that his partner is struggling financially without the applicant there to contribute to household expenses. For the reasons outlined above the Tribunal has not considered it necessary to impose a no work condition.
The applicant’s criminal history shows that he has been found guilty of 7 criminal offences between December 2023 and October 2024, convictions were not recorded for all offences. He has also had one charge for ‘possession of a utensil or pipe that has been used’ from October 2021 for which he was sent for drug diversion. Of the offences that the applicant has been found guilty of they, most relevantly to the Tribunal’s enquiry, include 3 counts of breach of bail and one count of contravention of a domestic violence order (DVO).
The applicant has a number of criminal charges pending before the courts, these include:
·102 counts of Contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated)
·Unlawful stalking, intimidation, harassing or abuse domestic relationship
·Aggravated supply of dangerous drugs to a minor under 16 years
·2 counts of Indecent treatment of children under 16
·3 counts of Rape
·Making child exploitation materials
·Distributing child exploitation materials
The applicant claims they will be entering a plea of not guilty to these offences, accordingly, given that these offences have not been proven by the court nor are admitted to by the applicant the Tribunal has not taken these offences nor the detail contained in the QP9 form into consideration, despite the applicant having provided the QP9 form to the Tribunal. The applicant is on bail for these offences.
The applicant was able to recite to the Tribunal his current bail conditions. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is aware of what these conditions are.
The applicant explained that the first breach of bail charge related to him downloading [social media] on his phone in circumstances where he is not permitted having this application on his phone. The applicant explained to the Tribunal that he was confused by the condition to remove the application from his phone within 24 hours of being granted bail and thought that meant he could later reinstall the application. The second breach of bail related to installing [social media] on his phone, he claims he did this because he was bored and not working. He was also found to have cannabis in his system on presentation for a drug test, he was found to have utensils to facilitate drug use - namely scissors which he claims were just scissors, and had a single joint of cannabis in his possession. The applicant claims that he was compliant with police in relation to these offences and made full admissions. The applicant claims he has now engaged a lawyer and is more aware of exactly what the bail conditions mean.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the conditions on the DVO. The applicant claims that the order has been extended until 2029. He was able to recite conditions relating to no contact with the protected person, who he claims is his former partner. The applicant claims that the conviction for breaching the DVO related to phoning his ex-partner (the victim). The applicant claims he was unaware at that time that he was unable to phone the victim as they had been mutually communicating by phone and it wasn’t until his ex-partner’s mother accompanied her to the police station and made a complaint that he realised he was not permitted to have contact by phone. Similarly to the bail conditions the applicant claims he has now engaged a lawyer and is more aware of exactly what the conditions on the DVO mean.
The applicant also submitted to the Tribunal a copy of his QLD Police Service Traffic Record. The record shows that he has had 13 traffic infringements between June 2020 and December 2022. The applicant explained that when those infringements occurred he was young, only recently had a licence and wasn’t familiar with the road rules in Australia. He claims he has not committed any traffic infringements since he obtained his Queensland drivers licence and all his traffic infringements occurred when he was driving on his international licence.
The applicant claims that his traffic offending all occurred when he had just obtained his licence and he was driving on an international licence, it was not until 2023 that he obtained his Queensland licence. The applicant claims that it was not until he obtained the QLD licence that he understood the road rules, the Tribunal does not accept this. The applicant has committed a total of 13 traffic infringements, these include:
·7 speeding related offences
·2 drive while drug present
·1 disobey ‘no right turn’
·1 unlicensed driving
·1 fail to comply with condition of non-Queensland licence
·1 fail to give way when changing from one line of traffic to another
The Tribunal finds that the applicant should have been aware of the road rules relating to speeding and drug use at a minimum after coming to the attention of police on the first occasion for each of those types of offences. The applicant also claims that in relation to the ‘driving while drug present’ offence, that it was the same police officer who charged him on both occasions and he claims that that officer was “looking for me” and “he did it again”; the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s explanation for the offending and attributing blame on the officer shows a lack of remorse and a lack respect for Australian laws and authorities.
The Tribunal informed the applicant that it noted that a number of the offences and traffic infringements for which he has been convicted or fined related to drug use. The applicant claims that the drug use related to cannabis and no other drugs. The applicant has not participated in any programs to address his substance use or impact on his offending. The applicant claims that he attempted to engage with the drug diversion program however he was unable to participate due to his relocation, he also claims that he had signed up for a domestic violence offenders program with Relationships Australia that was due to commence in August 2025 if he were released from detention. The applicant did not indicate engagement in any privately funded programs relating to drug use or domestic violence. The applicant claims that he is not addicted to cannabis, and only uses it once in a while, he further claims that since he was charged with possession and breach of bail in October 2024 he has not used cannabis.
The applicant asserted that he is remorseful of his actions, however the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s explanations for his offending and lack of acknowledgement that his substance use may have impacted upon his offending, given the number of drug related criminal offences and traffic infringements involving substance use, does not suggest that the applicant is genuinely remorseful.
Despite the applicant’s prior compliance with visa conditions, and taking into account the explanations the applicant offered in relation to his criminal and traffic offending the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s criminal history, his history of not abiding by bail conditions, breaching a condition on a domestic violence order, and traffic infringements shows that the applicant has disregard for laws in Australia and will not abide by conditions imposed on any visa.
The applicant has been present in Australia since 2019 and committed his first criminal offence in 2021 and most recent offence in October 2024. The applicant’s criminal history does not give the Tribunal confidence that he would not commit criminal offences.
The Tribunal accepts that the bail conditions would be some incentive to the applicant to abide by visa conditions, specifically not to engage in criminal conduct, as to do so would not only impact on his migration status but also on the continuation of bail and his avoidance of criminal detention. However, the Tribunal notes that the bail conditions are dated 30 May 2024 and despite having been subject to bail conditions since then the applicant has been convicted for breaching those same bail conditions on 3 occasions and been convicted of drug related offences. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanations for his offending, however despite the explanations the Tribunal finds that the imposition of bail conditions has not deterred the applicant from having engaged in criminal conduct in the past and does not accept that it would in the future.
The Tribunal has also considered whether his time in immigration detention since March 2025 would act as deterrent from breaching visa conditions, as he has had the opportunity to fully realise the consequences of breaching conditions in the future. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has spent a period of almost one month on remand in a correctional centre in early May 2024 until he was granted bail on 30 May 2024, and the Tribunal concludes that the deprivation of his liberties did not act as a deterrent from him committing further criminal offences, including breaching bail conditions, between June 2024 and October 2024.
The applicant claims that he needs to be granted the bridging visa so that he can properly engage with his lawyers and defend the charges, which he claims he will be entering a plea of not guilty to. The applicant claims that if he is not granted the bridging visa then he will remain in immigration detention for a significant period as his criminal matter is yet to be listed for hearing and he is not permitted to leave Australia whilst on bail. The Tribunal accepts that there may be logistical challenges to defending the criminal charges, and the Tribunal also accepts that if the bridging visa isn’t granted, he may be detained for a significant period while the criminal matter progresses.

The applicant further claims that his continued time in detention negatively impacts his Australian citizen partner. He claims that she is having to cover all household expenses. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant’s continued detention will make it difficult for him to meet the de-facto partner criteria for the grant of the partner visa. The Tribunal accepts these submissions.
Although the Tribunal has accepted the submissions outlined at [37] and [38], the hardship or impact on the applicant or any other person in not granting the bridging visa is not the issue before the Tribunal for determination. The question for determination is whether he will abide by conditions. The Tribunal accepts that: the applicant’s desire to support his partner; demonstrate his capacity to meet the criteria for the partner visa; and robustly defend the charges against him may be incentives for him to abide by visa conditions, however the Tribunal finds that the applicant has already had many incentives to not commit criminal offences including the risk of being criminally detained, yet he breached bail on 3 occasions and committed criminal offences whilst on bail.
The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant’s circumstances including the various incentives and motivations to abide by conditions and to not commit criminal offences. The Tribunal acknowledges the impact on the applicant and his partner if the bridging visa is not granted and that he would have many reasons to comply with conditions; however on balance the Tribunal concludes that the applicant’s history of failing to have due regard to Australian criminal laws including bail conditions, one of which he claims he breached out of boredom, and the lack of remorse for his action means that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant will abide by visa conditions, specifically condition 8564, not to engage in criminal conduct.
The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant would abide by condition 8564 if a security deposit were imposed. The Tribunal has found that the applicant has already had various incentives and motivations, including the risk of deprivation of his liberty, yet he continued to commit criminal offences, accordingly the Tribunal is not satisfied that the added incentive being a risk of loss of a security deposit would better ensure that he would abide by conditions. Accordingly, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant will abide by conditions even if a security deposit is imposed.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by conditions imposed on the visa if granted. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl 050.223.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
Date(s) of hearing: 10 June 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Tanguy Mutamba Mwilambwe