Zhou (Migration)

The applicant, a Chinese national, sought review of a decision not to grant him a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2017 on a student visa and had remained in Australia unlawfully for significant periods, applying for and being granted several bridging visas. He was subsequently convicted of firearm offences, for which he initially received a custodial sentence that was later converted to community service. However, he was detained under s 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and had remained in immigration detention since his release from custody. The applicant expressed a desire to await the hearing of his judicial review application in the community, complete his Master's degree, and receive community-based mental health treatment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Bridging E visa, specifically considering his criminal conviction, financial circumstances, and stated intentions regarding his departure from Australia. The Tribunal also considered the mandatory and discretionary conditions that would be imposed on such a visa, including the condition not to engage in criminal conduct. The applicant's claim of having approximately $7,000 in savings, held by a former landlord, was questioned due to inconsistencies with previous statements made to the Department and a lack of sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that it was not satisfied the applicant would abide by the conditions of a Bridging E visa, particularly given his criminal conviction and the inconsistencies in his financial representations. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claimed financial resources. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirements for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, as he was not a relevant eligible non-citizen under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.