Le (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) by Mr Le. The delegate refused the application, finding that Mr Le would not abide by the conditions of the visa, specifically the condition not to engage in criminal conduct. This decision was under review by the Tribunal, which heard evidence from Mr Le, his partner Ms Nguyen, and his step-son.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Le would abide by the conditions that would be imposed on a Bridging Visa, as required by cl.050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This required the Tribunal to consider Mr Le's immigration history, previous breaches of immigration laws, the wilfulness of those breaches, any mitigating circumstances, and evidence of contrition. The Tribunal also had to consider whether a security bond would be an appropriate measure to ensure compliance, referencing principles from *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* and *Liu v MIAC*.

The Tribunal found that Mr Le met the criterion in cl.050.212(3) as he had made a valid application for a Partner Visa that had not been finally determined. However, regarding cl.050.223, the Tribunal noted Mr Le's awareness of his unlawful status in Australia, his failure to proactively rectify his immigration status, and his arrest and charge for breaching bail conditions. Despite evidence of community support and a desire to remain in Australia with his family, the delegate was not satisfied that Mr Le would abide by visa conditions, concluding that a security bond would not ensure compliance given his history and outstanding criminal matters. The Tribunal, however, considered that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.