Nguyen (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa made by Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen had arrived in Australia on a student visa, which was subsequently cancelled due to his failure to enrol in a course, thereby breaching his visa conditions. He had also been working in Australia and was detained under section 198 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) following an incident where he was found at a property allegedly used for growing cannabis. His initial application for a Bridging E visa was refused, remitted for reconsideration, and then refused again, leading to the current review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Nguyen would abide by any conditions imposed on a Bridging E visa, as required by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This clause mandates that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant will comply with visa conditions. In assessing this, the Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's likely future conduct, taking into account relevant factors such as his past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, the presence of mitigating circumstances, and any evidence of contrition.

The Tribunal reasoned that an applicant's past immigration history, including previous breaches of immigration laws and the circumstances surrounding those breaches, are critical considerations in determining their likelihood of complying with future visa conditions. The Tribunal referred to established case law, including *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* and *Liu v MIAC*, which outline the principles for assessing compliance with visa conditions, noting that satisfaction of compliance is paramount and cannot be solely contingent on the imposition of a security bond. Despite the submission of documents relating to Mr. Nguyen's claimed relationship with his partner, the Tribunal found these did not alter its assessment of his immigration history or his likely future conduct regarding visa compliance.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Nguyen a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, concluding that it was not satisfied he would abide by the conditions that would be imposed.