2534301 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1622

2534301 (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1622 (4 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2534301
Tribunal:General Member N Goetz
Place:Melbourne
Date:  4 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision dated 25 June 2025 refusing to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.

Statement made on 04 July 2025 at 4:47pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – immigration detention – abidance by conditions – visa history – previous bridging visas and period as unlawful non-citizen – application for protection visa and departure while in progress – return on third-country passport in different name – second application for protection visa refused and affirmed, and applications for judicial review and ministerial consideration in progress – work without rights – brother’s offer of security deposit – departing flight booked – criminal convictions, breaches of conditions of court orders, and charges in progress – mental health report but no evidence of current treatment – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 73, 351, 367
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 4.27, Schedule 2, cls 050.212(3A), (6), 050.223, 050.618
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 merits review of a decision made under s 73 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act) by a delegate of the respondent who refused to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
The Department file reference is [Reference].
The applicant is represented in the review. The respondent is taken to be a non-participating party to the review under s 348A of the migration Act.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The applicant is a male citizen of Lebanon who was born in that country on [Date]. He is currently located in Australia.
The applicant was detained as an unlawful non-citizen on 17 June 2025 and placed into immigration detention where he remains to date.
Previous Australian substantive visa history
On 12 November 2014 the applicant was offshore and granted a visitor visa to come to Australia. [In] January 2015 the applicant arrived in Australia holding this visa which was valid until 28 February 2015.
On 27 February 2015 the applicant applied for a protection visa.
[In] June 2015 the applicant departed Australia.
On 15 September 2015 a delegate refused to grant the applicant the protection visa. On 14 October 2015 an application for review of the protection visa was lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). On 6 November 2015, the AAT finalised the review on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision: AAT 1513937. On 11 February 2016 an application for judicial review of the AAT decision was lodged with the Federal Circuit Court. On 12 April 2016 the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the judicial review, on the basis that it was withdrawn by the applicant.
[In] July 2017 the applicant arrived in Australia on a [Country 1] passport in the name of [Alias] holding an electronic travel authority visa.
On 22 August 2017 the applicant applied for a protection visa.
On 14 November 2018 a delegate refused to grant the protection visa. On 21 November 2018 an application for review of the protection visa was lodged with the AAT. On 2 April 2024, the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa: AAT 1834220. On 22 April 2024 an application for judicial review of the AAT decision was lodged with the Federal Circuit and Family Court. This judicial review remains ongoing.
On 28 October 2024 the applicant applied to the respondent to exercise powers under s 351 of the Migration Act. This request remains ongoing.
Previous bridging visa grants
Since arrival in Australia, the applicant has held the following bridging visas:
From 3 March 2015 until 5 June 2015, he held a Bridging A (Class WA) visa. No conditions were attached to that visa.
From 5 June 2015 until 11 September 2015, he held a Bridging B (Class WB) visa. No conditions were attached to that visa.
From 20 December 2017 until 19 January 2018, he held a Bridging C (Class WC) visa. Condition 8101 attached to that visa.
From 19 January 2018 until 7 May 2024, he held a Bridging C (Class WC) visa. No conditions were attached to that visa.
Current visa under review
On 16 September 2024 the applicant applied for the Bridging E (Class WE) visa which is the subject of the review.
At the time the visa application was lodged, Class WE contained two subclasses: Subclasses 050 and 051. The criteria for Subclasses 050 and 051 are contained in Part 050 and Part 051 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Migration Regulations) respectively.
On 25 June 2025 the delegate refused to grant the applicant the bridging visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy either cl 050.223 or cl 051.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. These clauses provide the following:
050.223
The Minister is satisfied that, if a bridging visa is granted to the applicant, the applicant will abide by the conditions (if any) imposed on it.
051.211
The applicant is an eligible non - citizen referred to in subregulation 2.20(7), (8), (9), (10) or (11).
On 30 June 2025 the application for review of the decision was lodged with the Tribunal.
On 1 July 2025 the review was constituted to the Tribunal Member.
On 2 July 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via his representative and invited the applicant to appear at a hearing scheduled for 9:30am on 4 July 2025 via MS Teams. The Tribunal determined that a hearing conducted via MS Teams was appropriate in circumstances where the applicant is in an immigration detention centre.
On 4 July 2025 the hearing commenced and concluded. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the English and Arabic languages.
Pursuant to s 367 of the Migration Act and Regulation 4.27 of the Migration Regulations, the prescribed period for the Tribunal to make a decision on the review is within 7 days working days from the date the review application is received by the Tribunal.
CONSIDERATION AND CONCLUSION
The issue in this review is whether the applicant satisfies cl 050.223 or cl 051.211.
If the Tribunal finds the applicant satisfies either cl 050.223 or cl 051.211, the correct or preferable decision is to set aside the decision under review and remit the visa application back to the delegate for reconsideration.
If the Tribunal finds the applicant does not satisfy cl 050.223 and cl 051.211, the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.
The Tribunal considered the following material relevant to whether the applicant satisfies the criteria under review:
·     The contents of the Department file for the visa application made on 16 September 2024
·     The contents of the Tribunal file for review of the decision made to refuse to grant the applicant the bridging visa on 25 June 2025
·     The oral evidence of the applicant and submissions made by the representative at the hearing on 4 July 2025.
·     The oral evidence of [Mr A], [Ms B], [Mr C] and [Mr D] provided at the hearing on 4 July 2025.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that decision under review should be affirmed
050.223
In order to satisfy cl 050.223, the decision-maker must be satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions that would be imposed on the bridging visa if granted.
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.
In circumstances where the applicant has an outstanding request for the Minister to exercise powers under s 351 of the Migration Act, the applicant satisfies cl 050.212(6).
In circumstances where the applicant has an outstanding judicial review application for a decision made by the Tribunal to refuse to grant him a protection visa, the applicant satisfies cl 050.212(3A).
Clause 050.618 provides that in addition to any other condition imposed by another provision, Condition 8564 may be imposed.
The delegate decision record details that the discretionary conditions that the delegate would impose on the bridging visa pursuant to cl 050.212(3A) and 050.212(6) being satisfied are the following:
8207 The holder must not engage in any studies or training in Australia.
8401The holder must report (a) at the time or times; and (b) at a place or in a manner; specified, orally or in writing, by the Minister from time to time.
8506The holder must notify Immigration at least 2 working days in advance of any change in the holder's address.
8564 The holder must not engage in criminal conduct.
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.
Two proposed witnesses did not give evidence at the hearing, namely [Ms E] and [Mr F]. Attempts by the Tribunal to contact those witnesses by telephone were not successful.
The oral evidence provided by [Mr A], [Ms B], [Mr C] and [Mr D] was consistent in that each of those witnesses spoke of their belief that the applicant is a good person who had never caused them any problems. [Mr D] is the applicant’s brother.
Most of those witnesses had known the applicant for a significant period of time and spoke about being aware that the applicant had problems with his marriage, but were not aware of the specifics of this. The witnesses also spoke about their belief that the applicant was a person who complied with the law and was a good, decent and honest person.
The Tribunal accepts that there is no evidence of any previous visa condition requiring the applicant to update the Department with any change of address. The Tribunal disregards any failure of the applicant to let the Department know of his address in circumstances where there is apparently no mandatory requirement for him to do so.
[Mr D] told the Tribunal that he was prepared to put up a security deposit for the grant of the bridging visa, indicating his belief that the applicant would comply with the conditions that would attach to the bridging visa if it was granted.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he understood the conditions which would be imposed on the bridging visa and that he agreed to comply with them.
Despite the assessments about the applicant’s character by the witnesses, and the applicant’s oral evidence that he would comply with the conditions that would attach on the visitor visa if granted, the Tribunal was concerned about the following facts, which may suggest that the applicant would not comply with conditions that would be imposed on the bridging visa if granted.
First, the evidence demonstrates that the applicant most recently entered Australia on a [Country 1] passport issued in the name of another person. At the hearing, the applicant agreed that this was not his name and that he was not a [Country 1] citizen. Noting to the applicant that the applicant travelled to Australia on a fake identity may lead the Tribunal to question the applicant’s honesty, the applicant told the Tribunal that he had a humanitarian situation, and his life was at risk in Lebanon. He claimed that his brother was prepared to pay a security bond which demonstrated that the applicant was being honest when he claimed he would comply with conditions on the bridging visa application. The fact that the applicant was prepared to enter Australia under a false identity because he felt justified in doing so suggested to the Tribunal that the applicant was prepared to engage in dishonesty to achieve a particular migration outcome. The Tribunal takes this attitude into account when assessing whether the applicant will comply with conditions that attach to the grant of a bridging visa.
Second, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a flight centre booking made on 3 July 2025 for a flight one way flight from Australia to [Country 2] on 30 August 2025. The Tribunal was told that this was evidence of the applicant’s intention to permanently depart Australia and that the purpose of the bridging visa was to allow the applicant time to be in the community to make arrangements to finalise his business before leaving.
However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had an ongoing request to the Minister as well as an outstanding judicial review application and queried how these were consistent with his claimed intention to depart Australia. The Tribunal also queried how the applicant would be able to reside in [Country 2] permanently given his claim at the hearing that he would not be able to return to Lebanon because he would be harmed in that country. The Tribunal was told that Lebanese citizens can travel to [Country 2] without a visa and remain in that country for up to 6 months, but the Tribunal was told that the applicant was not sure what he would do after that. The Tribunal was told that the applicant indented to leave Australia after his next court date concerning his criminal charges and that his intention to depart Australia came about once, he was in immigration detention.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is genuine when he claims that he will depart Australia and not return. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant produced a flight booking to leave Australia, but given the fact that the applicant apparently has not right to permanently reside in [Country 2] and is not willing to return to Lebanon, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if granted the bridging visa (and the applicant is presumably not prohibited from leaving Australia by any condition attached to a curial order) he would do so.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal’s assessment is that the applicant arranged the flight booking to [Country 2] because he believed it would be more persuasive to the Tribunal in finding that the applicant meets the criteria for the visa. This shows to the Tribunal that the applicant is prepared to engage in activity that is not true to achieve a particular migration outcome. The Tribunal takes this attitude into account when assessing whether the applicant will comply with conditions that attach to the grant of a bridging visa.
Third, the applicant has demonstrated criminal history in Australia as follows:
·     On 10 July 2019, the applicant was convicted of two charges of stalking and sentenced to a conditional release order for two years.
·     On 22 October 2020 the applicant was convicted of two charges of stalking and making a false accusation subjecting another person to investigation and was sentenced to a community corrections order for 12 months with a fine of $500.00.
·     On 6 June 2022 the applicant was convicted of one charge of common assault and sentenced to a community corrections order for nine months with a fine of $500.00.
·     On 29 February 2025 the applicant was convicted of one charge of stalking and contravention of a domestic violence order and sentenced to an intensive correction order for 15 months.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant was charged on 11 October 2024 with two charges of stalking, but these charges have not yet been finalised. Similarly, on 17 June 2025, the applicant was charged with one charge of contravention of a domestic violence order, but this charge has not been finalised.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant produced documents to demonstrate he had no criminal history either in [Country 1] or Lebanon. However, the fact remains that the applicant has a demonstrated criminal history in Australia.
The Tribunal observes that despite the applicant knowing the witnesses who gave oral evidence on his behalf to the Tribunal since his arrival in Australia, their presence in his life did not apparently stop him committing criminal offences in Australia.
The Tribunal queried how it could have faith that the applicant would comply with conditions on a bridging visa in light of the fact that the applicant has demonstrated breaches of the law, including breaches of court orders where the applicant has been instructed to comply with certain conditions. In the Tribunal’s assessment, curial orders which require a person to do or not do certain things are analogous to bridging visa conditions. The applicant said that the breaches were due to him not knowing the law and apologised for his behaviour.
Concerning a breach of a domestic violence order, the Tribunal was told that the applicant and his wife arranged to attend a court to change the conditions on a domestic violence order which prohibited contact from the applicant to his wife and that he did not realise that this was a breach of the order. The Tribunal is not persuaded by this explanation. It is absurd to think that the applicant thought contact would be permitted between the applicant and his wife when the existing order apparently prohibited such conduct. The Tribunal’s assessment is that this demonstrates a willingness by the applicant to disregard orders if he believes he is justified in doing so.
Similarly, the fact that the applicant has repeatedly been before the courts and sentenced for stalking and assault demonstrate an indifference to laws which prohibit certain behaviour. The Tribunal finds it odd that the applicant would apparently not know stalking someone or assault someone was not against the law. The charges apparently relate to some dispute related to repairs to the applicant’s motor vehicle. At best, this shows the applicant is indifferent to his conduct in the community. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant now expressing remorse demonstrates that his attitude has changed. The Tribunal takes this attitude into account when assessing whether the applicant will comply with conditions that attach to the grant of a bridging visa.
Fourth, the applicant has been without a visa to regularise his migration status since his last bridging visa expired on 7 May 2024. When asked about this at the hearing, particularly about when he thought this visa was to expire, the applicant’s response was that he didn’t check when the visa was to expire, and suggested that it was the fault of a representative whom he had at that time The applicant noted that this person had apparently lost her migration registration as a result of his complaint.
The Tribunal is not persuaded by the explanation. It is the duty of the applicant to know when his bridging visa is to expire. The fact that the applicant said he did not check demonstrates, in the Tribunal’s assessment, that he was indifferent to his migration status. The Tribunal takes this attitude into account when assessing whether the applicant will comply with conditions that attach to the grant of a bridging visa. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal that the Department never told him that he was an unlawful non-citizen in his telephone conversations with them following the lodgement of the most recent bridging visa application demonstrates a lack of insight on behalf of the applicant about whose responsibility it is to make sure that the applicant knows his immigration status.

Fifth, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that he was working until he was detained, despite not holding any visa that enabled work rights, demonstrates that the applicant is indifferent to his migration status. The applicant did not hold any visa after 7 May 2024 and the argument that because he lodged a bridging visa in September 2024 after being made aware that he no longer held a bridging visa does not satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant would comply with bridging visa conditions. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant believed that as a result of lodging the bridging visa, he was somehow lawfully in Australia.
The Tribunal finds the applicants actions in continuing to work while not holding a bridging visa that permitted him to do so after 7 May 2024 demonstrates an indifferent attitude by the applicant towards his obligations as a non-citizen in Australia. The Tribunal takes this attitude into account when assessing whether the applicant will comply with conditions that attach to the grant of a bridging visa.
Concerning other matters, the applicant produced photographs of himself with police officers, his wife, as well as his [business]. He provided photographs of himself with children who were identified as his stepchildren from his wife’s previous relationship. The applicant maintained that he loved his wife and her children and that he does not wish to harm them.
The applicant provided a psychologist report from [Mr G] dated 2 January 2022 which stated that the applicant is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of his history, which was identified as:
·     The applicant being a homosexual who had received death threats in Lebanon and was assaulted in that country and nearly killed when he was 15.
·     Lived in a civil partnership in [Country 1] and left that country due to a collapse in the relationship.
·     The applicant has been assaulted in Australia and the perpetrator sent to jail.
·     The applicant is socially isolated, and his previous representative leaked personal information about the protection visa application in Lebanon.
The report does not identify any treatment that the applicant is receiving concerning his PTSD nor identify any strategies or treatment available to the applicant to ensure that he does not commit further offending in Australia and otherwise comply with conditions that would attach to the bridging visa if granted.
Taking into account the applicant’s PTSD, his demonstrated criminal conduct in Australia, his period of unlawfulness, working despite not having permission to do so because he did not hold a bridging visa, and his dishonesty in the circumstances of his most recent arrival in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will comply with any conditions that will attach to the bridging visa if granted.
The Tribunal’s assessment is that the applicant has an attitude towards his migration status demonstrating that he will do whatever he thinks will benefit him, even if that is in contravention of conditions on a bridging visa. The fact that the applicant has various witnesses who believe the applicant to be an honest and good person does not overcome the Tribunal’s assessment that the applicant will not comply with conditions that will attach to the bridging visa, for the reasons given above. The fact that the applicant’s brother is prepared to offer a security deposit does not satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant will comply with conditions that will attach to the bridging visa if granted.
Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy cl 050.223
051.211
In order to satisfy cl 051.211, the applicant must be an eligible non-citizen referred to in subregulation 2.20(7), (8), (9), (10) or (11).
Subregulations 2.20(7), (8), (9) and (10) require an applicant to be a non-citizen who was refused immigration clearance or bypassed immigration clearance and came to the notice of Immigration as an unlawful non-citizen within 45 days of entering Australia.
The evidence is that the applicant has not been refused immigration clearance bypassed immigration clearance.
Subregulation 2.20(11) requires the applicant to be a member of the family unit of a person who was refused immigration clearance or bypassed immigration clearance and came to the notice of Immigration as an unlawful non-citizen within 45 days of entering Australia (among other things).
There is no evidence that the applicant is a member of the family unit of such a person.
At the hearing, it was conceded that the applicant did not satisfy cl 051.211.
Considering the concession, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is an eligible non-citizen referred to in subregulation 2.20(7), (8), (9), (10) or (11).
Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy 051.211.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not satisfy cl 050.223.
Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not satisfy cl 051.211.
Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision dated 25 June 2025 refusing to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
Date(s) of hearing: 4 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mrs Manel Zoulfikar (MARN: 1910490)