Verma (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa, specifically concerning their ability to abide by visa conditions. The applicant had previously been convicted of breaching a family violence order and served a period of imprisonment.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied clause 050.212(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which relates to having a pending substantive visa application undergoing merits review. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on the Bridging E visa, as required by clause 050.223. The applicant was also seeking a Subclass 051 Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa, and the Tribunal needed to ascertain if they met the eligibility criteria for that visa as well.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant did meet the criterion under clause 050.212(3), as they had a student visa application that was currently before the Tribunal and had not been finally determined. However, when considering clause 050.223, the Tribunal applied the principles from *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289, which require an assessment of the applicant's likely future conduct based on their past immigration history, the significance and wilfulness of any breaches, and any mitigating circumstances or contrition shown. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the eligibility 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.