TRINACHA (Migration)

Case

[2018] AATA 5251

26 November 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
TRINACHA (Migration) [2018] AATA 5251 [2018] AATA 5251 26 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking review of a decision not to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2010 and held various visas, including Student and Temporary Business visas, until his last visa ceased on 30 December 2016, rendering him an Unlawful Non-Citizen. Following a court appearance for a traffic offence, the applicant was detained and subsequently applied for a Bridging Visa E.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was making, or was the subject of, "acceptable arrangements to depart Australia" as defined by subclause 050.212(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This criterion required the applicant to satisfy one of the alternatives set out in clauses 050.212(2) to (9) at the time of the visa application and continue to satisfy it at the time of the decision. The applicant sought to rely solely on subclause 050.212(2).

The Tribunal reasoned that while "acceptable arrangements" is not explicitly defined, guidance can be drawn from case law such as *Chen v MIMIA* and *Lin v MIMIA*, which permit consideration of the genuineness of the applicant's intentions. The applicant claimed to have made arrangements to depart Australia on 27 November 2018 and provided a flight itinerary. However, he also stated a need for significant time to finalise his affairs, including packing up a restaurant business, selling vehicles, and signing documents at his residence, which he claimed only he could locate. The Tribunal found that based on the evidence, the applicant would require a substantial period to finalise these matters and concluded that he did not have a genuine intention to leave Australia on the proposed date.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, finding that he did not meet the criterion of making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa (Subclass 051).
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Intention

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

2

Statutory Material Cited

0

Chen v MIMIA [2001] FCA 285
Lin v MIMIA [2001] FCA 283