VEA (Migration)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in May 2013 on a temporary visa with a "no further stay" condition, sought review of a decision not to grant him a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. He had become an unlawful non-citizen after his initial visa ceased and had been granted several bridging visas on the basis of obtaining travel documents for departure. Despite expressing an intention to apply for a partner visa, he remained in Australia, became an unlawful non-citizen again, and was subsequently convicted of child-related sex offences. After his release from criminal custody on parole, he was detained by Australian Border Force and indicated a renewed intention to apply for a partner visa, but lacked the necessary funds and supporting documents.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa, specifically subclause 050.212, in circumstances including his history of non-compliance, criminal convictions, and the subsisting "no further stay" condition on his previous visa. The Tribunal was required to consider his claims, including his assertion that the criminal charges were fabricated, and assess his eligibility for a bridging visa in light of his immigration status and intentions.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the Bridging E visa. It took into account his extensive history of non-compliance with immigration laws, his financial position which prevented him from lodging a valid partner visa application, and the fact that he remained subject to the "no further stay" condition. The Tribunal was not satisfied that he could make a valid partner visa application while in Australia, and therefore affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.