2015449 (Migration) [2020] AATA 4539 (27 October 2020)

Last Updated: 12 November 2020

2015449 (Migration) [2020] AATA 4539 (27 October 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER: 2015449

MEMBER: David Barker

DATE: 27 October 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.

Statement made on 27 October 2020 at 2:31pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Bridging E (Class WE) – Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) – abide by conditions of visa – no criminal conduct requirement – drug-related offences – conviction and imprisonment – risk of reoffending – drug dependency – misrepresentation of criminal history – no remorse or responsibility taken for past conduct – no work requirement – parental support – reporting and residential requirements – stated preference to remain in Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 73
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 050.212, 050.223, 050.612A; Schedule 8, Conditions 8101, 8401, 8505, 8564

CASE
Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA [2002] FCA 197; (2002) 70 ALD 289

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa under s.73 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2. The applicant applied for the visa on 13 October 2020. At that time Class WE contained two subclasses: Subclasses 050 and 051. In the present case, the applicant is seeking to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 visa, which are set out in Part 050 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations (the Regulations). Relevantly to this matter, the primary criteria include cl.050.223.
3. The decision to refuse to grant the visa was made on 15 October 2020 on the basis that the applicant would not abide by visa conditions which would be applied to any bridging visa and therefore does not meet the criteria in cl.050.223.
4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by videoconference, utilising MS teams, on 23 October 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. There were some technical difficulties during the hearing, which resulted in the applicant not having access for some period of the hearing to a visual feed of the presiding member, however the audio connection was at all times maintained. The applicant, in response to a question from the presiding member, gave a clear indication that he preferred to continue with the hearing and indicated that he did not consider the technical difficulties to diminish his opportunity to put before the Tribunal evidence and arguments in support of his review.
5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The issue in this case is whether the applicant will abide by the conditions that may be applied to the bridging visa (cl.050.223).

The applicant’s visa history

7. The following information about the applicant’s immigration history is taken from the delegate’s decision record, which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, from the applicant’s evidence and from other material before the Tribunal.
8. The applicant is a national of Malaysia and is [age] years old.
9. The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] March 2015 as the holder of an Electronic Travel Authority which permitted him to remain onshore for three months [until] June 2015. On 5 June 2015 he applied for a [student] visa, which was subsequently granted on 17 July 2015. On 13 November 2017 the applicant applied for a student [visa] as the dependent partner of a student visa holder. This visa was granted on 9 February 2018 valid until 14 October 2019.
10. On 14 January 2019 the applicant was issued with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of his student visa under the provisions of s.116 of the Act. The applicant had been charged with “supply prohibited drug >indictable & <commercial quantity” by NSW Police. The applicant was remanded into criminal custody [in] April 2019. On 2 May 2019 his student visa was cancelled under s.116(1)(e)(i) of the Act as the delegate was satisfied that the grounds for cancelling his visa outweighed the reasons not to cancel his visa. As a result of the cancellation the applicant became an unlawful non-citizen.
11. The applicant sought merits review of the decision to cancel his student visa at the Tribunal which, (differently constituted) affirmed the student visa cancellation decision on 13 September 2019.
12. [In] March 2020 the applicant was convicted of “supply prohibited drug >indictable & <commercial quantity-t1,goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v), publish etc. false misleading material to obtain advantage-t1 and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (dv)-t2.” Records indicate that he was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and six months.
13. Upon the applicant’s release from criminal custody [in] October 2020, he was located by Australian Border Force officers, as he was known to be an unlawful non-citizen and subsequently detained pursuant to s.189 of the Act and transferred to [an Immigration Detention Centre], where he currently remains.
14. On 13 October 2020 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa. An application for an associated Bridging Visa E (BVE) was triggered given the applicant is in immigration detention. It is the Department’s decision, on 15 October 2020, to refuse the application which is the subject of the current review before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal hearing

Applicant’s evidence

15. The applicant confirmed that he arrived in Australia in March 2015 on a tourist visa and said that the purpose of coming to Australia was because of his family situation in Malaysia. He said that his family owned a [property], which the government had wanted to purchase. He said that when his family refused to sell the [property] the police hit the applicant and his parents which gave them a sense of hopelessness and so they decided to come to Australia. The applicant confirmed that he has lodged an application for a protection visa and has yet to hear the outcome of that application. The Tribunal then explained to the applicant that it would not be reviewing his entitlement to a protection visa, as the focus of the Tribunal will be on whether it could be satisfied that he would abide by conditions which may be attached to a bridging visa.
16. The applicant said he has no relatives remaining in Malaysia and that both of his parents are residing in [City 1], NSW, where they work in a [workplace]. He said that his parents have applied for protection visas and have yet to hear the outcomes of those applications.
17. The applicant confirmed that he was in January 2019 charged with serious criminal offences and remanded in custody, and that in March 2020 he was found guilty of supply prohibited drug >indictable & <commercial quantity-t1, goods in personal custody suspected being stolen, publish etc. false misleading material to obtain advantage-t1 (and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (dv)-t2. The applicant confirmed that he was sentenced to a period of two years and six months in custody, with a non-parole period of 18 months.
18. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant written submissions he had provided in support of his review. In relation to his making the point that the charges against him were changed from ‘supply prohibited drug’ to ‘deemed supply’ the applicant indicated that this was to show the decision to cancel his student visa was based on criminal charges that were subsequently downgraded. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it was not reviewing the past decision to cancel his student visa and asked what he wished the Tribunal to understand about the current risk he may engage in criminal conduct. In response the applicant said that at the time he committed the criminal offences he had a drug dependency. He said that after being in custody he will never do something like that again. He said that his drug use had really harmed him, his friends and his family.
19. In response to a question as to whether he had at any stage sold drugs to other people, the applicant said that he had not. He said that he had on occasion purchased drugs with other people and shared them with those other people but reiterated that he had not at any time sold drugs.
20. In response to a question as to whether he had been charged or convicted with other criminal offences, the applicant said he had no convictions, but he had at an earlier time been charged with facilitating the delivery of drugs.
21. The Tribunal noted that in his written submission the applicant referred to having again failed to overcome the effects of his drug dependency and sought clarification of what he was referring to. In response the applicant said that he was jailed for an initial period of two months and that after he was released, he recommenced his drug use and was incarcerated again around two months later. In response to a question as to why there would be a different outcome if he was to be released into the community on a bridging visa, the applicant said there will be because he has now been in prison for a long time and is afraid of returning to prison. He said that he really wants to change his life and will not do the same thing as he has done in the past.
22. The Tribunal noted that the written submission also referred to difficulties in the applicant’s relationships with his parents due to his drug dependency issues and invited him to explain the nature of these difficulties. In response the applicant said that at that time he was still very young and had contact with drugs. He said that his arguments with his parents were about his drug use and that after he was locked up in gaol, he learned to cherish his family. He said that now he wants to stay with his family.
23. Again referring to his written submissions, the Tribunal asked the applicant why, as he has contended, giving him a second chance to rehabilitate should outweigh the expectations of the Australian community that non-citizens should abide by Australian laws and respect Australian values. In response the applicant said he should be given a second chance because he does not want to return to Malaysia because Australia is a very good country and he really hopes he can remain in the Australian society.
24. The applicant gave evidence that his drug dependency problems developed in 2018, but that he had not sought any professional assistance in relation to these difficulties before he went to prison. He said that he left his parents’ home in [City 1] because of the drug issue.
25. As to how he would financially support himself if he was released into the community on a bridging visa, the applicant said he would live with his parents and that they would financially support him. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided a letter of support from his father, which corroborated this claim, but that he had not provided evidence as to his parents’ capacity to financially support him. The applicant said this was because of the short period of time which he had to prepare for the review application. The applicant said he would report to the Department as required if he were to be released on a bridging visa and would not work or study.
26. In response to a question from the Tribunal the applicant indicated that he had at no stage told departmental officers during an interview that he was willing to depart from Australia. He indicated that in the event his application for a protection visa was not successful he would appeal that sort of decision.
27. In response to a question as to whether he had concerns about returning to Malaysia the applicant said his concern is that he does not have any family remaining in Malaysia. The applicant told the Tribunal that he wants a chance to remain in Australia, change his life and that he really regrets what he has done in the past.

Evidence of the applicant’s father

28. The Tribunal noted the letter of support from the applicant’s father indicated his availability to be contacted by telephone. The Tribunal contacted him, but he was only able to talk for a limited period of time due to reception difficulties from where he took the call at his workplace. The applicant’s father conveyed his willingness to support the applicant and his wish for his son to come back to his home. Further attempts to contact the applicant ’s father were not successful. The applicant was advised that the Tribunal would consider any further comments the applicant’s father may wish to make, in writing, that were received by 10 am on the Monday following the hearing.

Information put to the applicant pursuant to s.359AA of the Act

29. During the hearing, the Tribunal put certain information to the applicant pursuant to s.359AA of the Act. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the particulars of this information would, subject to his comments and response, provide the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the Department’s decision to refuse his application for the bridging visa. The Tribunal told the applicant it would explain to him why the information was relevant and what the implications would be if the Tribunal relied on that information. The Tribunal advised the applicant he could, if he wished, request further time to consider his response. The particulars of the information put to the applicant were:
    • During a hearing before the Tribunal (differently constituted) in September 2019 regarding a review of the decision to cancel his student visa the applicant indicated that he did not at that time fear persecution or significant harm in the event he returned to Malaysia;
    • During an interview at [the] Immigration Detention Centre on 6 October 2020 the applicant indicated that he wished to apply for a visa to remain in Australia, but did not know which visa to apply for;
    • During the interview on 6 October 2020 the applicant indicated that he was willing to depart from Australia voluntarily if he had no other choice, but that he would prefer to remain in Australia.
30. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that information is relevant because his stated preference to remain in Australia raises the concern that if he were to be released from [the] Immigration Detention Centre on a bridging visa and was not subsequently successful in his application for a protection visa he may not abide by conditions attached to the bridging visa as to reporting and residential requirements. The Tribunal explained that his statements, as recently as September 2019 that he does not fear persecution or significant harm in his home country, in conjunction with his indication he was when interviewed and that he wanted to remain in Australia but was unsure of what type of visa to apply for adds to concern as to whether he would abide by reporting and residential requirements which may be attached to a bridging visa.
31. The Tribunal also put information from a Facts Sheet, prepared by the NSW Police Service for the applicant’s court appearance at [a] Local Court [in] July 2019. This information included that the applicant had told NSW police that he had sold drugs at an earlier time than the date on which he was charged with the offences dealt with by the court [in] July 2019. The Police Facts Sheet also noted that the police had questioned the applicant in relation to previous fraud, drug and domestic assault offences.
32. The Tribunal explained that this information is relevant as it is not consistent to evidence provided by the applicant at hearing in relation to whether he had sold drugs and also in relation to his criminal history. The Tribunal explained that this raised concern as to whether the applicant had been truthful in the evidence he provided to the Tribunal at hearing. The Tribunal explained that this in turn raised concern as to whether the applicant would abide by conditions which may be imposed on a bridging visa, including the condition he did not engage in further criminal conduct.
33. The Tribunal explained that if it is not satisfied that he will comply with conditions that would be applied to a bridging visa, it will affirm the decision to refuse the bridging visa application. The applicant requested further time to consider his response and the Tribunal consented to this request, indicating it would consider any comment or response that the applicant may wish to make, in writing, by 10 am on the Monday following the hearing.
34. The applicant responded within the required time frame and provided the Tribunal with a range of documents including:
    • Written submissions;
    • Personal statement;
    • Bank records and payslip of his father;
    • Sentencing assessment report;
    • Evidence of participation in courses about health and welfare whilst in custody.

Assessment of the evidence

35. At the time of the visa application, the applicant must meet one of the alternatives set out in cl.050.212(2)–(9). The applicant must continue to satisfy this criterion at the time of decision: cl.050.221.
36. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant meets cl.050.212(3), because he has applied for a substantive visa that has not been finally determined. He therefore meets one of the time of application criteria in cl.050.212 and so the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant will abide by conditions imposed on a bridging visa if one is granted.

Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl.050.223

37. Clause 050.223 requires that the Tribunal is satisfied at the time of decision, that if a bridging visa is granted to the applicant, the applicant will abide by any conditions imposed on it. Conditions that may be imposed on a Subclass 050 visa are provided for in Division 050.6 and set out in Schedule 8 to the Regulations. Division 050.6 also sets out conditions to which the visa is subject.
38. When considering cl.050.223, the Tribunal must consider which conditions, if any, should be imposed and whether it is satisfied that the applicant would abide by those conditions. In deciding the question of whether the applicant would abide by conditions imposed, the Tribunal is to consider the likely conduct of the applicant. In that context, relevant considerations may include the applicant’s past immigration history, in particular any previous breaches of immigration laws, the significance of the migration laws that were breached, the wilfulness with which those laws had been breached, whether there were any mitigating circumstances justifying their breach and whether the applicant had shown any contrition for their unlawful conduct: Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA (VAAN) [2002] FCA 197; (2002) 70 ALD 289 at [15]–[16].
39. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions if security of a particular amount is required, the applicant meets cl.050.223. However, if not satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions, regardless of any security that may be imposed, cl.050.223 is not met.
40. In this case, cl.050.612A applies because the applicant is seeking a bridging visa on the basis he has applied for a substantive visa that has not been finally determined and has thereby met the criteria in cl.050.212(3). This clause prescribes that, in addition to the mandatory condition 8101, certain conditions may be imposed. The Tribunal considers that the following conditions should be imposed in the circumstances of this case:

8101 The holder must not engage in work in Australia.

8401. The holder must report:

(a) at a time or times; and

(b) at a place;

specified by the Minister for the purpose.

8505. The holder must continue to live at the address specified by the holder before
8564. The holder must not engage in criminal conduct.
41. In determining whether the applicant will abide by visa conditions, the Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s past conduct and his immigration history. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence, the evidence of his father, the submissions and the documentary evidence provided.

Compliance with condition 8564

42. The Tribunal must determine whether it is satisfied that the applicant will comply with condition 8564. This states that he must not engage in criminal conduct. The Tribunal’s focus is on the applicant’s future conduct. It is necessary for the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant will not engage in any criminal conduct at all. An applicant’s past conduct is a significant factor in reaching such a conclusion, but not determinative. Other relevant factors in the assessment may include, for instance, an applicant’s rehabilitation and his prospects in the future.
43. In the applicant’s favour is the indication the applicant has a strong level of parental support. However the weight given to this factor is moderated by the uncertainty inherent in the circumstances of the applicant’s parents, given they themselves are both non-citizens with visa applications with the Department, the outcomes of which are unknown at this time. The extent to which they can provide a positive, stabilising influence in the applicant’s life is unclear and cannot in the view of the Tribunal be relied on due to the uncertainty of their own circumstances and also due to the applicant’s receptivity to their positive influence appearing contingent on his effectively managing his methamphetamine dependency issues.
44. In the applicant’s favour, with regard to this factor is the evidence he has provided of courses he has undertaken whilst in custody with the NSW prison service and his stated intention to abstain from further drug abuse. It is however of concern that the applicant has previously relapsed whilst under supervision in the community in February 2019, resulting in his resuming methamphetamine abuse and his being placed back in custody.
45. The Tribunal is also concerned that the applicant sought at hearing to minimise his criminal history claiming he had no criminal convictions, prior to those he was charged with in January 2019. Information inconsistent with this, from a Police Facts Sheet, was put to the applicant pursuant to s.359AA of the Act and the response from the applicant received regarding this information verifies that he has ‘historical convictions for Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Goods in Custody Suspected of Being Stolen, publish False Misleading Information to Obtain Advantage, Drive vehicle with illicit Drug Present in Blood and a Previous Supply Prohibited Drug conviction’.^[1] Whilst providing this information to the Tribunal on 26 October 2020, the applicant has not explained why at hearing he stated he had no prior convictions, nor why he denied at any stage selling drugs to other people, a claim that is patently not consistent with convictions referred to in the Police Facts Sheet and the Corrective Services NSW Sentence Report. The Tribunal finds the applicant misrepresented his criminal history in his evidence at hearing and does not view this as an indicator of a person taking full responsibility for their offending behaviour. The Tribunal has placed weight on this as a factor against the applicant complying with a bridging visa condition that he does not engage in further criminal conduct.
46. It is of some concern that in submissions the applicant has focused on his perception that the decision to cancel his student visa in 2019 was based on an incorrect perception of the seriousness of the charges he was at that time facing in the NSW court system. Whilst the focus of the Tribunal is on the future conduct of the applicant, it is not reassuring that he seeks to retry past events in a manner which through its focus on the drug supply charge appears to show no remorse or responsibility taken for the dishonesty related offences he was also charged with at that time. A contention that his overall pattern of offending stemmed from a drug dependency and gambling debts may highlight contributing factors, but in the view of the Tribunal, does not obviate concern for the absence of attention the applicant has given to the dishonesty the applicant displayed in his reported endeavour to gain a credit card by falsifying his identity.
47. The Tribunal shares the delegate’s concern about the applicant’s convictions for multiple criminal offences. In the view of the Tribunal this conduct demonstrates a broader disregard for Australian law and whilst acknowledging the applicant has family support and has demonstrated remorse and expressed a resolve not to engage in further criminal conduct, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied, in these circumstances, that the applicant will comply with condition 8564.

Compliance with condition 8101

48. The applicant gave evidence at hearing that he would not work if he was to be released into the community on a bridging visa. He contends that he would reside with his parents in [City 1], who would meet all of his living expenses. The delegate noted the applicant made similar claims when interviewed on 15 October 2020 but had not provided any evidence to support this claim. The applicant has provided a letter from his father which supports his claim as to his parents being willing to financially support him and offer him somewhere to live. At hearing the applicant’s father gave oral evidence consistent with that contained in the letter from him. The Tribunal has also now received evidence of the income of the applicant’s father and his current savings. The Tribunal has given some positive weight to this offer of parental support. However as referred to elsewhere in this decision, the weight given to this factor is influenced by the uncertainty inherent on the applicant’s parent’s circumstances due to their current status as non-citizens in Australia awaiting the outcome of their own visa applications.
49. The proposal that the applicant has no need to work is also in the view of the Tribunal contingent on his living situation with his parents remaining stable and viable. In light of this, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant has a significant history of drug dependency, which has in the past caused difficulty and disruption to his relationship with his parents and led to his moving out of their home and distancing himself from their support.
50. Because the Tribunal is concerned as to the sustainability of the proposed living arrangements put forward by the applicant, which would result in his not needing to seek some form of paid employment for living expenses, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied the applicant would abide by condition 8101, if he deemed it was not in his interests to do so.

Compliance with conditions 8401 and 8505

51. In the applicant’s favour with regard to this factor is the evidence he has the support of his parents and they wish him to return to their home in [City 1]. The Tribunal considers this, albeit with the reservations expressed above, to be a factor supporting the applicant’s stated intent to abide by the condition he report as required and reside at a specified address, namely the home of his parents in [City 1], NSW. Unfortunately, as discussed elsewhere the Tribunal is of the view it cannot qualify the positive weight given to this factor by the lack of certainty in the migration status of the applicant’s parents and the adverse impact that could accrue from their own visa applications being refused, bringing as that may, pressure on them to depart from Australia.
52. Of concern to the Tribunal is the available evidence as to the applicant’s ability to effectively manage his drug dependency and related behaviours which were not pro-social when he was last under supervision in the community in early 2019. There was an incentive on the applicant at that time to manage his difficulties so as to avoid further incarceration and it is apparent that he was not successful in achieving this goal. Whilst accepting the applicant and his parents have a sincere wish for him to maintain stability in his living situation if he were to be released from [immigration detention] on a bridging visa, the available evidence suggests this may be a challenge for him.
53. The Tribunal is also convinced that the applicant has a strong wish to remain in Australia and that he has expressed an unwillingness to return to his home country. The applicant’s contention that he fears to return to his home country, whilst not consistent with some of the particulars of information put to him pursuant to s.359AA of the Act, reinforces the view he is not willing to depart from Australia voluntarily. The Tribunal considers there is a risk the applicant could seek to hide himself in the Australian community and not abide by reporting and residential conditions of a bridging visa in the event his application for a protection visa is not successful.
54. Due to the uncertainty in his parents’ own circumstances, his history of maintaining stability and abstaining from drug use whilst in the community and the concern as to the actions the applicant may take if his application for a protection visa is not successful the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied the applicant would abide by conditions 8401 and 8505.

Summary

55. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has expressed contrition and remorse for his past offending behaviour and the impact this has had upon him, his family and Australian society. The Tribunal has placed some positive weight on this factor. The Tribunal has also placed weight on the level of parental support which is evident in this case, with the weight on this factor mitigated, as discussed, by the uncertainty of his parents’ circumstances and the extent to which disruption could impact the applicant should his parents’ circumstances change through their own visa applications being refused.
56. Of concern to the Tribunal is that the applicant has committed serious criminal offences in Australia. In considering whether he would abide by the visa conditions imposed on a bridging visa, if granted, the Tribunal places significant weight on his past offending. The Tribunal has also placed weight on the applicant’s minimising of his criminal history in his evidence at hearing and considers this not to be indicative of a person facing up to and taking full responsibility for their past offending behaviour.
57. The applicant has contended that giving him a second chance to rehabilitate should outweigh the expectations of the Australian community that non-citizens should abide by Australian laws and respect Australian values. The Tribunal is not persuaded by this contention and is of the view that it reflects the applicant’s focus on his own circumstances and his wish to remain in Australia. In the view of the Tribunal this reflects attitudes held by the applicant which place him at risk of disregarding laws, rules and regulations where he deems this to be in his interests.
58. The Tribunal considers there to be significant uncertainty as to how the applicant will react if he suffers setbacks, either in relation to his applications to remain in Australia, his management of his drug dependencies and associated gambling behaviour, or in the support available to him from his parents.

Security

59. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant will abide by conditions 8101, 8401, 8505 and 8564, if a security is required, as a financial incentive for his compliance.
60. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions if security of a particular amount is required, the applicant meets cl.050.223. However, if not satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions, regardless of any security that may be imposed, cl.050.223 is not met.
61. After consideration of this issue the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by visa conditions, even with a security of any amount. It therefore finds that he does not meet cl.050.223.
62. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will abide by conditions imposed on the visa if granted. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.050.223.
63. For these reasons, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.
64. The visa application is also an application for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa. The applicant is not a relevant eligible non-citizen as set out in cl.051.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and therefore does not meet the requirements for the grant of that visa.

DECISION

65. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.

David Barker
Member

---

^[1] Corrective Services NSW Sentence Report.