NITTIS (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa by an individual who was an unlawful citizen in Australia. The applicant sought to satisfy criterion cl.050.212(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires the applicant to be making, or be the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. The applicant did not claim to meet any other alternative criteria under cl.050.212.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had made "acceptable arrangements" to depart Australia, and crucially, whether her intentions in making those arrangements were genuine. The Tribunal was guided by principles established in cases such as *Chen v MIMIA* [2001] FCA 285 and *Lin v MIMIA* [2001] FCA 283, which permit consideration of the genuineness of an applicant's intentions. The Tribunal also had to determine if the applicant had deliberately provided false information regarding her immigration history and personal circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the criterion under cl.050.212(2). While the applicant had provided evidence of a flight booking to the Philippines, this ticket was purchased only two days before the hearing. The Tribunal found the applicant to be an uncredible witness, noting significant inconsistencies and changes in her evidence regarding her initial reasons for coming to Australia, her previous visa history, and her husband's care arrangements. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had deliberately provided false information about her immigration history and had manipulated her evidence to support her application, demonstrating a lack of genuine intention to depart Australia. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa.

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