Maksoud (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by Mr Maksoud. The central dispute concerned whether Mr Maksoud would abide by the conditions imposed on such a visa, as required by clause 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Maksoud satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E visa, specifically whether he would abide by any conditions imposed on the visa if granted. This involved assessing his immigration history and the likelihood of future compliance with visa conditions. The Tribunal also considered whether Mr Maksoud met the requirements for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, which he did not.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Applicant VAAN of 2002 v MIMIA* (2003) 70 ALD 289, which dictate that when considering an applicant's likelihood to abide by visa conditions, relevant factors include their past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, the presence of mitigating circumstances, and any contrition shown. The Tribunal found that Mr Maksoud had worked unlawfully in Australia, demonstrating a blatant disregard for immigration laws, and had been arrested and charged with criminal offences. Given this history, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be satisfied that Mr Maksoud would abide by conditions such as not engaging in work, reporting as directed, not undertaking study, notifying changes of address, and not engaging in criminal conduct.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Maksoud a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.