WTWL and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a bridging visa. The applicant, a Fijian citizen and talented rugby player, had resided in Australia for several years, pursuing a rugby career and tertiary studies. His application for a Protection Visa was found to be fraudulent, made solely to gain time. Subsequently, he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault against his former girlfriend and her friend. The Minister's delegate refused to grant the bridging visa, relying on the character provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and Direction No. 90.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied the character test, and if not, whether there were compelling reasons to exercise discretion to grant the bridging visa despite his failure to meet the character requirements. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to consider the weight to be given to various "primary" and "other" considerations as outlined in Direction No. 90, including the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the Australian community, and the impact of the decision on any children.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's offences were serious, particularly given their violent nature against women, they did not constitute "family violence" as defined by the Direction. It was also noted that the offences were committed at the same time, indicating no trend of increasing seriousness. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim for a Protection Visa was fraudulent, which weighed heavily against him in the discretionary assessment. The Tribunal also considered the expectations of the Australian community, finding that the applicant's offending weighed significantly against him in this regard. The Tribunal determined that the best interests of a minor child were not engaged, as the reference to a child in the Direction did not extend to an unborn child.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the bridging visa. It concluded that the applicant's conduct, including the fraudulent visa application and the violent offences, meant that the primary considerations weighed heavily against granting the visa. The Tribunal found no compelling reasons to exercise discretion in the applicant's favour, and therefore, the refusal of the bridging visa was upheld.