Mittal (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by an applicant whose previous dependent student visa had been cancelled due to criminal offending. The applicant sought the bridging visa to remain in Australia while pursuing review of the visa cancellation and to reside with his wife. The delegate had also considered other discretionary criteria but focused on the applicant's failure to meet the condition of not engaging in criminal conduct, and concluded that no security would ensure compliance.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant would comply with the discretionary condition 8564, which mandates that the visa holder must not engage in criminal conduct. The Tribunal also considered whether any imposed security would be sufficient to ensure compliance with visa conditions. The applicant's criminal history, spanning from April 2018 to November 2020, included multiple convictions for offences such as driving contrary to a defect notice, possessing a prescription drug, and dishonesty, resulting in fines, community service, and suspended periods of imprisonment.

In assessing the applicant's likelihood of future compliance, the Tribunal noted the pattern of offending over a relatively short period. The applicant attributed his offending to associating with negative influences and developing a heroin dependence, stating he had been drug-free for three months and was undergoing treatment, though he provided no evidence. The Tribunal expressed concern that the offending appeared to be interrupted only by periods of immigration detention. The applicant's assertion that he was feeling "OK not to go back [in]to bad company" was considered in light of his history. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated he would comply with the condition of not engaging in criminal conduct.