Anitoni (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant, a citizen of Tonga, who sought review of a decision concerning his application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had been in Australia since December 2019, initially on a seasonal worker program visa. After his visa expired in August 2020, he remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen, having been granted several Bridging E visas in the interim. His most recent bridging visa expired in January 2023, and he remained in Australia unlawfully, subsequently being detained. The applicant's partner, an Australian citizen, supported him financially, along with his sister and brother-in-law. The applicant and his partner had experienced recent miscarriages, impacting his partner's mental health, and they wished to resolve his visa status to build a life together in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa, specifically under clause 050.212(2) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to be making, or be the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the threshold criteria under clause 050.211, which relates to his immigration status. The Tribunal noted that the concept of "acceptable arrangements" is not defined in the Regulations but that case law, such as *Chen* and *Lin*, indicates that the genuineness of the applicant's intentions in making such arrangements is a relevant consideration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the requirements of clause 050.211, as he was an unlawful non-citizen at the time of application and remained so at the time of the decision, and was not an eligible non-citizen of a kind excluded by subregulation 2.20. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met clause 050.212(2) because he had provided a confirmed flight itinerary to depart Australia on 21 September 2024, along with supporting documentation including statutory declarations from his partner and family, and letters from his partner's medical practitioners. The Tribunal concluded that these arrangements, coupled with the applicant's stated intention to depart, constituted acceptable arrangements for departure.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa under clause 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa.