Sikdar (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5244

Sikdar (Migration) [2018] AATA 5244 (12 November 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Chayan Sikdar

CASE NUMBER:  1832039

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/4714328

MEMBER:Brendan Darcy

DATE:12 November 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.

Statement made on 12 November 2018 at 4:05pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) visa – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – abiding by visa conditions – making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia – interviewed by an authorised officer – previous spouse relationship ceased – non-compliance with criminal laws – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 73, 189
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 050.212, 050.221 - 050.223, 051.211, Schedule 8 Division 050.6

CASES

Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) (2002) 70 ALD 289

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s.73 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 26 October 2018. At that time Class WE contained two subclasses: Subclasses 050 and 051. In the present case, the applicant is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 visa, which are set out in Part 050 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations (the Regulations). Relevantly to this matter, the primary criteria include cl.050.212, 050.222 and 050.223.

3. The decision to refuse to grant the visa as the delegate on behalf of the Minister was not satisfied the applicant would be able to uphold conditions to be imposed on any granted bridging visa for the purpose of departing Australia.

4. The applicant had earlier applied for a bridging visa on 4 September 2018 whose grant was refused on the 6 September 2018. The applicant validly applied to have that refusal decision reviewed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal subsequently affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the bridging visa on 19 September 2018.

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 November 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. During the scheduled hearing, the applicant submitted a number of documents including a copy of the delegate’s decision dated 31 October 2018 and the Tribunal’s earlier decision record (1826351) dated 19 September 2018.[1]

   [1] AAT Folio 30-43.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE

7. The applicant is a Bangladeshi national who was born in 2 May 1984.

8. There were a number of documents on the Departmental file submitted by the applicant for the delegate to consider. These include:

   ·A certified copy of the applicant’s birth certificate issued by the relevant authorities in Bangladesh;

   ·A copy of the interview between the applicant and delegate date 30 October 2018 held at Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre;

   ·Certified extracts form the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria dated 5 October 2018. The extracts indicate that the applicant consented to a summary hearing by pleading guilty to processing methylampthetamine, ecstasy/MDA and GBH;

   ·Copies of a reserved flight from Melbourne to Dhaka via Bangkok with the departure date 12 December 2018; 

   ·An email sent by the applicant seeking an appointment with the consular officials of the Bangladeshi Government in Melbourne to submit an passport application. The email ids dated 14 October 2018;

   ·A letter from Sian Dooley who claimed to be a friend of the applicant for the last two years;

   ·An undated letter from Sophana Jeyanthan claiming to be the girlfriend of the applicant for six years and now affianced to the applicant; and

   ·A booking for an event for an engagement between the applicant and Sophana, his putative fiancée;

   Evidence before the Tribunal  

   Applicant’s Visa History

9. During the hearing, the applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision (as mentioned above). The Tribunal discussed the applicant’s lengthy visa history which included the following milestones:

   ·The applicant was granted a student visa for vocational studies on 18 February 2003;

   ·He arrived in Australia on 8 March 2003;

   ·The applicant was granted a student visa for higher education in 12 October 2004

   ·He was then granted a further student visa for higher education on 4 October 2007;

   ·He was then granted a further student visa for higher education on 28 March 2008;

   • He was then granted a further student visa for higher education on 13 November  2008;

   ·The applicant then granted for his final student visa for higher education on 3 June 2009 which was set to expire on 15 March 2010;

   ·On 15 Marcy 2010, the applicant lodged for a Combined onshore partner visa (Class BS Subclass 820/ Class BS Subclass 801);

   ·The applicant was granted the temporary Subclass 820 partner visa on 20 May 2011;

   ·The Department notified by the sponsor of the partner visa that the relationship had broken down on 9 July 2012;

   ·The applicant was notified that the permanent parent visa application was being considered for refusal on 23 August 2012;

   ·Between August 2012 and January 2013 the applicant’s representative made four requests for an extension of time to respond;

   ·The Department proceeded to refuse the grant of the Subclass 801 visa on 12 June 2013;

   ·The applicant appealed to the Tribunal to review the refusal of the partner visa; was granted an associated bridging visa on 08 July 2013;

   ·The Tribunal affirmed the Department’s decision not to grant the visa on 24 October 2014;

   ·The applicant applied to the Tribunal’s decision reviewed by the Federal Circuit Court on 21 November 2014, during which time the applicant was holding an associated bridging visa;

   ·The FCC upheld the Tribunal’s decision on 15 May 2018;   

   ·On 26 May 2018, the applicant was apprehended by Victoria Police for shop stealing and failing to appear at Magistrates’ court;

   ·The applicant’s bridging visa expired on 12 June 2018 while the applicant was imprisoned for three months;

   ·On 26 August 2018, the applicant was removed from criminal custody to immigration detention under s.189 of the Migration Act;

   ·On 4 September 2018, the applicant applied for his first bridging visa for departure purposes;

   ·On 6 September 2018, the Department refused to grant the bridging visa and subsequently the applicant validly applied to have refusal decision reviewed by the Tribunal;

   ·On 18 September 2018, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a bridging visa for departure on the grounds he did not make any satisfactory arrangement to depart Australia;

   ·The applicant applied for a second bridging visa for departure purposes on 26 October 2018;

   ·The applicant was interviewed by a departmental official for his second bridging visa application on 30 October 2018;

   ·The second bridging visa was refused on 31 January 2018.

10. During that time the applicant departed Australia for Bangladesh multiple times – the last time he departed for Australia for Bangladesh was on 19 January 2013. He returned on 15 February 2013 while holding his temporary partner visa.  

    Oral and Other Evidence before the Tribunal

11. During the hearing, the applicant provided additional documents for the Tribunal to consider including the Tribunal’s earlier decision record, the delegate’s decision record, an application for a passport with the Bangladeshi authorities; a letter of support from the applicant’s former employer; medical evidence pertaining to the health status of applicant’s mother (the applicant claimed his mother had difficulties with diabetes; detainee requests forms (various dates) for a travel document; and sample pages from the applicant’s notebook that he claimed were taken while in prison.

12. The Tribunal provided the applicant the opportunity to the reasons he would depart Australia in an orderly manner. In this regard, the Tribunal pointed the Tribunal’s earlier decision in which outlined the applicant had committed numerous criminal offences and breached bail and court orders. The applicant neither denied these; nor their seriousness. 

13. However he argued that his life has substantially turned around due the support of his fiancée and that his parents and his siblings are supportive of his return to Bangladesh and that he was going to begin his life anew in Bangladesh with the proceeds of the car he needed to sell (currently at the residence of Ms Dooley) and the superannuation money he has accumulated. The applicant claimed his family were going to help him establish a business but he needed to sometime in the community to sell his car and obtain a passport. He claimed he had compelling reasons to depart due to his parents’ illnesses and that his fiancée was going to marry him in Bangladesh and migrate there. He submitted an engagement party quote and reservation.

14. During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed the account in the delegate’s record that the applicant had been seeking the advice and assistance of a migration agent or lawyer. During the interview with the Department, the applicant showed SMS messages on his phone indicating the applicant had been trying to sell his car to help pay for a migration agent or lawyer.  The applicant explained that he held strong suspicions that the third party, whom he described as untrustworthy and as a drug addict, would keep the car or proceeds of the car if he knew the applicant was departing the country and that he was not intending to lodge another substantive visa.

15. The applicant claimed that his visa history was not indicative of someone who had not wilfully been non-compliant with Australia’s migration laws and that he had applied for each visa and appeal on a genuine basis. He argued that was not, as the delegate argued, demonstrating a flagrant disregard for the integrity of the migration programme by appealing to the Tribunal and the Courts when he was not in a relationship since 2011. He claimed that he would not be applying for other visas if permitted into the community.

16. At the end of the hearing, no further documents were required.

    The grounds for seeking the visa - cl.050.212

17. At the time of the visa application, the applicant must meet one of the alternatives set out in cl.050.212(2)-(9). The applicant must continue to satisfy this criterion at the time of decision: cl.050.221.

18. In this case, the applicant is seeking to meet cl.050.212(2). The applicant claimed the purpose of seeking a bridging visa was to orderly depart Australia. The applicant does not claim to meet any of the other alternative criteria in cl.050.212. For the reasons below, the applicant meets cl.050.212.

    Acceptable arrangements to depart Australia

19. Subclause 050.212(2) is met if the Minister, or the Tribunal on review, is satisfied that the applicant is making, or is the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. ‘Acceptable arrangements’ is not defined in the Regulations. The Department’s Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3), whilst not binding on the Tribunal, nevertheless provides some guidance: Chenv MIMIA [2001] FCA 285 (Chen) at [26] and Lin v MIMIA [2001] FCA 283 (Lin) at [26]. It is also open to consider whether the applicant’s intentions in making any arrangements to depart, were genuine (Lin at [30]).

20. The applicant submitted copies of booked airline tickets for the applicant to depart Australia on 12 December 2018 for Bangladesh via Thailand. He also submitted a copy of an application for a passport through Australia’s Bangladeshi High Commission and correspondence with the Bangladeshi’s diplomatic mission in Melbourne to make an appointment. He also claimed that officials at the detention centre were assisting in gaining an alternative travel document for the applicant.  According to the earlier decision record, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not made these arrangements to depart Australia. The Tribunal at the time was also concerns that the applicant had outstanding court offences to be heard; however he provided court documents at the date of the scheduled hearing that no such court hearings were required as the applicant had been pleaded guilty and was punished through fines for drug possession.

21. It clear by the submitted material that the applicant had been taken more active steps in satisfying cl.050.212(2) for this bridging visa application than the earlier application and that there is no evidence that he does not have any further court appearances at the time of making this decision.

22. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of application the applicant was making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. Therefore the applicant meets cl.050.212(2).

    The requirement to be interviewed by an authorised officer - cl.050.222

23. Clause 050.222 requires that except in certain circumstances, the applicant must be interviewed by an officer authorised for the purposes of that clause. The exceptions are either: the applicant is not in immigration detention, holds a Bridging E visa, has made a valid application for a substantive visa, and will not be seeking a further Bridging visa E visa with different conditions; or, the applicant is not in immigration detention, does not hold (but previously held) a Bridging E visa, has made a valid application for a substantive visa and the authorised interview officer was not available at specific times; or the applicant meets cl.050.212(4AAA) or continues to meet cl.050.212(4AB).

24. As discussed in the scheduled hearing, the applicant did not dispute that he had been interviewed by a Departmental officer. The decision record clearly indicates that the applicant was interviewed by the delegate on 30 October 2018.

25. Accordingly, the applicant meets cl.050.222.

    Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl.050.223

26. Clause 050.223 requires that the Tribunal is satisfied at the time of decision, that if a bridging visa is granted to the applicant, the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on it. Conditions that may be imposed on a Subclass 050 visa are provided for in Division 050.6 and set out in Schedule 8 to the Regulations. Division 050.6 also sets out conditions to which the visa is subject.

27. When considering cl.050.223, the Tribunal must consider which conditions, if any, should be imposed and whether it is satisfied that the applicant would abide by those conditions. In deciding the question of whether the applicant would abide by conditions imposed, the Tribunal is to consider the likely conduct of the applicant. In that context, relevant considerations may include the applicant’s past immigration history, in particular any previous breaches of immigration laws, the significance of the migration laws that were breached, the wilfulness with which those laws had been breached, whether there were any mitigating circumstances justifying their breach and whether the applicant had shown any contrition for their unlawful conduct: Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) (2002) 70 ALD 289 at [15]-[16].

28. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions if security of a particular amount is required, the applicant meets cl.050.223. However, if not satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions, regardless of any security that may be imposed, cl.050.223 is not met.

29. Overall, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant does not intend to orderly depart Australia.

30. The overwhelming weight of the applicant’s past non-compliance has strongly invited the Tribunal to consider that the applicant is determined to remain in Australia regardless of his ability to satisfy cl.050.212(2) and his capacity to be able to provide responses to specific to evidence. The applicant claimed that he has overcome his difficulties in illicit drug use and keeping company in persons involved in criminal activities. He claimed his family is ready to welcome him back when he returns to Bangladesh and that his fiancée will move to Bangladesh with him. In many ways, the applicant was persuasive in the details.  However, as discussed in the hearing, the earlier decision record submitted to the Tribunal indicates that the applicant had been charged a total of 42 times for criminal offences, has been on bail a total of nine times, has been the subject of 18 arrest warrants and was wanted on a ‘Forensic identification for burglary’.

31. There is also the applicant’s visa history which strong indicates that the applicant has used repeat applications of student visa without completing his engineering degree.  The applicant applied for an onshore partner visa but did not contact the Department when the relationship broke down as required. (The Tribunal does not accept the applicant believed the relationship only recently ended at the time of the Department had notified him, as claimed, given the former wife’s claim the relationship had ended at least a year earlier).  He did not respond to the Department to respond to the issue of the break down leading his permanent onshore partner visa being refused, despite being supported by a migration agent. The Tribunal asked if the applicant had employed the appeal processes for migration matters which appear to be about prolonging his lawful migration status. The applicant claimed that he had not as he claimed that he had been a victim of family violence when threatened by the brother of his former wife.  However, in the context of the applicant’s non-compliance with laws other than migration laws, the Tribunal is not satisfied this to be the case.

32. The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant remains determined to apply for a further visa, even though his visa options were now limited. The applicant claimed that he has been careful to remain lawful while in Australia and he only became unlawful after his bridging visa had expired while in custody. However, the applicant’s determination to remain a lawful migration status appears to be intended to avoid being detained or forcibly removed, given his extensive criminal breaches. This is indicative of the applicant’s strong determination to remain in Australia. The Tribunal has also considered his relationship with his fiancée whom he claimed to be in a relationship for six years and that he intended to have an engagement party if he were granted this bridging visa for departure purposes. However, the Tribunal continues to hold reasonable suspicions that such arrangements are not designed for an offshore application but for an onshore application to lodged to remain in Australia.  Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s letter of support from Ms Dooley strongly indicated the applicant wished to remain in Australia when she wrote about her discussions with the applicant to remain in Australia as the applicant who is remorseful for his past criminal actions can be a valuable member of the community and that he deserves to re-establish himself to reach his full potential here in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that Ms Dooley was simply expressing she wished his current predicament with his migration status had not arisen.  

33. Even more deeply suspicious was the delegate’s evidence that the applicant had been texting a third party to sell his car to finance a migration agent. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s implausible response that he was deliberately misleading this third person into thinking he was remaining in Australia as he was not a trustworthy drug addict. The very fact the applicant admitted to relying on a drug addict to assist him in any matter and not his fiancée or other friends strongly indicates the applicant is likely to continue to breach Australian laws. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds the applicant has fabricated much of his claimed intentions and circumstances to depart Australia as he has clearly been seeking migration assistance and assistance to apply for a new substantive visa.

1. Cumulatively taking into account the applicant’s overall migration history, his criminal history and the written and oral evidence that substantially undermined his claims that he was intending to orderly depart from Australia, the Tribunal finds the applicant continues to hold a strong determination to remain in Australia.

2. While the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is no longer required to attend any further court hearings and that the applicant has taken some admirable steps to stop illicit drug use since his imprisonment this year, the Tribunal is unable to overcome the overwhelming weight of his serious and numerous criminal offences, his breaches of bail conditions and court orders and the Tribunal’s adverse findings regarding his visa history in finding that the applicant is not determined to remain in Australia. In particular, the Tribunal is troubled by the applicant’s admission that he was maintaining contact with drug addict he feared would steal his car or money. It further notes its abovementioned finding that the applicant had actually been seeking to sell his car to apply for a further substantive visa. The Tribunal therefore does not accept the applicant will orderly depart Australia if released into the community while holding a bridging visa. 

3. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by any of those conditions regardless of any security that may be imposed. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet cl.050.223 based on the following findings about the following conditions:

4. Condition 8207 (Must Not Engaged in Study in Australia):  As discussed in the hearing, the applicant had ample opportunities since his arrival to complete his higher educational coursework while he held multiple student visas. However, he did not complete those studies which would have provided him with more pathways to develop a career and permanent residency. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant will not breach 8207.

5. Condition 8506 (Advise of Change of Address): During the applicant’s testimony at the scheduled hearing, the applicant claimed that he would be staying at the same address with his friend who submitted a letter of support for the applicant and where his car he intended to sell resides. The Tribunal enquired that given the applicant had avoided the authorities in the past this invited the Tribunal to consider that the applicant will be inclined to change his address, and not report the change of address as he intended to remain in Australia regardless of this and other conditions. The applicant responded by stating that he had not been unlawful in the past until he was imprisoned and by insisting that he would not jeopardise his lawful status again as he intends to leave the country.

6. Based on the available evidence, the applicant is correct in stating that he has maintained his lawful migration status since his arrival until he was detained for criminal matters. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has made efforts to rehabilitate himself by avoiding illicit drug use. 

7. However, the applicant’s past non-compliance with criminal laws, breaches of bail conditions and courts summons are so numerous, grave and frequent, that the Tribunal cannot provide the applicant with the benefit of the doubt that he will update the Department about any change in address and uphold condition 8506, as the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant intents to orderly depart Australia.

8. Condition 8101 (Must Not Engaged in Work in Australia):  At the scheduled hearing, the applicant outlined that he would not work as his fiancée would be able to cover the cost of his living expenses leading up to the date of his intended departure. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s fiancée has the capacity to support the applicant given she has a full time job as a co-ordinator in a warehouse.  

9. However, as the applicant’s past non-compliance with criminal laws, breaches of bail conditions and courts summons are so numerous, grave and frequent, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will not engage in work while Australia and therefore breach of 8101, as the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant intends to orderly depart Australia.

10. Condition 8401 (Report as Directed):  During the scheduled hearing, the applicant stated that he would report to the Department as required if granted to hold a bridging visa. The Tribunal specifically raised with the applicant his past breaches with bail conditions and court summons; to which the applicant responded that these were things he did in the past but he genuinely wanted to leave.  The Tribunal also discussed the twelve month time in which the applicant and his representatives requested written reasons regarding the applicant’s application for a permanent partner visa after the relationship had broken down. The applicant explained that his original migration agent/lawyer had cancer and that he employed another agent or lawyer but the communication between him and the new agent was poor. While there may be aspects of this explanation that are plausible, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant did not response to the Department’s request for a written response at all, either directly or through a registered migration agent, over a twelve month period, when it was open to him doing so.

11. Based on the applicant’s past non-compliance with criminal laws, breaches of bail conditions and courts summons are so numerous, grave and frequent and his visa history, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will not report to at a time and place specified by the Minister (or one of the Minister’s delegates) and therefore breach of 8401, as the applicant is determined to remain in Australia, regardless of his migration status.

12. Condition 8564 (Must not Engage In Criminal Conduct) With regards to this specific visa condition, the applicant admitted that he has not been compliant to a variety of Australian laws regarding illicit drugs, weapons, property theft and dangerous and unlicensed driving. He admits to extensive breaches of bail conditions and avoiding court appearances. This strongly indicated to the Tribunal that the applicant has little regard for Australia’s laws intended to protect persons, property and the public safety.  The applicant claimed that his first marriage adversely affected him as he and his wife began to use drugs recreationally which led him onto the wrong side of the law. Since his arrest and incarceration in May 2018, the applicant claimed that his life has improved: he has desisted in using illicit drugs, that his fiancée has been supportive and his family, although originally shocked by the news of his drug offences and imprisonment, have welcomed him back into the family. He further claimed to have an epiphany while in imprisoned and showed undated writings he wrote while in prison. The writing included positive aphorisms but was not conclusive of any sudden and positive change in his outlook in life, as claimed. 

13. This narrative about the applicant’s life having been substantially reformed, however, was fundamentally undermined by the applicant’s admission that he was maintaining contact with drug addict he feared would steal his car or money. Had the applicant been more meaningfully addressing his history of substance abuse and criminal activity, he would not been in contact with or relying on such a suspicious and untrustworthy character for any assistance at all.

14. As mentioned above, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has taken some admirable steps to address illicit substance abuse. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is unable to overcome the considerable seriousness and frequency of the applicant’s non-compliance with a wide range of Australian laws and his ongoing contact with admittedly untrustworthy persons. Even with the support of his fiancée and his family, substance abuse is not easily overcome and the applicant’s extensive list of criminal offences and his ongoing contact with an ‘untrustworthy drug addict’ strongly indicates the Tribunal that the propensity to commit further criminal offences.  For these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant will not return to the Australian community on a bridging visa without engaging in criminal activities and breach condition 8564.

15. 8510 (Mark arrangements to Obtain a Passport) The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has taken pro-active steps to apply for a passport and that he has attempted to gain some other travel documents such as a titre de voyage. He claimed that he needed to leave immigration detention in order to attend an interview with Bangladeshi authorities in Australia and that gaining a travel document would take up to six months according to officials at the detention centre.

16. However , the applicant’s past non-compliance with criminal laws, breaches of bail conditions and courts summons  and his visa history which demonstrates a determination to remain in Australia regardless of the integrity of its migration laws, strongly indicates that the applicant will not fulfil the arrangements required to obtain a passport if this bridging visa were to be granted. According the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant will not breach condition 8510, as the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant intends to orderly depart Australia.

17. Condition 8511 (Must show the Department a Ticket for Travel) The applicant provided a copy of a reserved flight indicating the applicant will depart Australia for Bangladesh (via Thailand) on 12 December 2018. The Tribunal accepts the applicant will require the applicant to be granted a bridging visa to complete the booking satisfactorily.

18. However, the applicant’s past non-compliance with criminal laws, breaches of bail conditions and courts summons and his visa history which demonstrates a determination to remain in Australia regardless of the integrity of its migration laws, strongly indicates that the applicant will not show the Department a ticket for travel  if the visa were granted.  According the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant will not breach condition 8511, as the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant intends to orderly depart Australia.

    Summary

19. In carefully considering the evidence in support of the applicant’s claims to compliance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would not breach many of the relevant conditions that would be attached to the visa and that compliance will not be enhanced by attaching a security bond if the visa were to be granted.

20. For the stated reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by many of those conditions regardless of any security that may be imposed. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet cl.050.223.

    Conclusion

21. For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.

22. The visa application is also an application for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa. The applicant is not a relevant eligible non-citizen as set out in cl.051.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and therefore does not meet the requirements for the grant of that visa.

    DECISION

23. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.

    Brendan Darcy
    Member