1. As described above, the expression 'acceptable arrangements' is not defined in the Regulations. However, it is open to consider whether the intentions of an applicant in making any arrangements to depart, are genuine (Lin at [30]). It also appears to me that what is inherent in the meaning of 'acceptable arrangements', in the context of an application for a bridging visa, is arrangements which will address the risk of an applicant for a bridging visa disappearing into the Australian community, if released from immigration detention.
2. Relevantly, in the context of cases such as the present one, where the applicant for the bridging visa has been detained after a lengthy period in which the applicant has been an unlawful non-citizen (without a valid visa), the acceptable arrangements to depart Australia must entail arrangements made by the applicant which reduce the risk of the applicant not returning to their home country in the imminent future, but instead, again, disappearing from contact with the Department.
3. Again, in my view, that requires the Tribunal, when reviewing a decision to refuse a bridging visa, having regard to considerations such as the following (non-exhaustive):

(a) the applicant's immigration history in Australia;

(b) the duration of times when the applicant has been an unlawful non-citizen without a visa;

(c) the reasons (objectively assessed) why the applicant has been an unlawful non- citizen without a suitable visa;

(d) when and how the applicant proposes to return to their own country;

(e) conditions which may be made which may minimise the risk of the applicant disappearing into the community.

1. In the balancing of all of these factors in this case, I place significant weight on the fact which the Applicant admitted, that he has been an unlawful non-citizen in Australia for 12 years and knowingly so. He acknowledged that the purpose of migration laws is that a foreign citizen must not be in a country without a valid visa. The reason why he had not engaged with the Department was that he was worried about having to return to Malaysia because he did not have a valid visa. However, in my view, that is not a good enough reason to avoid contact with the Department to regularise his migration status.
2. The reason he gave for initially not getting in contact with the Department after his visitor visa expired, was that he said he was 'scammed' by a migration agent whom the Applicant paid to obtain a student visa for him, but did nothing. He was aware of that early in the time when he was in Australia without a valid visa, and still did nothing to try to redeem the situation. At the same time, he is aware of visa requirements, because he knows that his former wife and his brother both have student visas to allow them to stay in Australia.
3. I have considered the reasons why the Applicant says he needs to have a bridging visa, which in summary can be distilled down to three purposes:

(a) wanting to see his daughter, and to arrange for her to have a nanny prior to her returning to school;

(b) needing to make travel arrangements, which, as at the date of the hearing, meant obtaining a temporary Malaysian passport, given that he had already arranged an airline ticket to return to Malaysia;

(c) organising logistics for his living arrangements including packing up his possessions.

1. In my view, given the Applicant's evidence on all of these factors, there is nothing that needs to be achieved that cannot be carried out by his ex-wife or his brother, in combination, whilst he remains in detention at Villawood. On travel arrangements, his evidence was that he has not yet applied for a temporary Malaysian passport, and so could not say whether Malaysian consulate officials could not visit him in Villawood to make those arrangements. In any event, the failure to obtain or even apply for a temporary Malaysian passport, is a failure to make acceptable arrangements to leave Australia.
2. His daughter lives with his ex-wife, and given that situation will continue until after the Applicant leaves Australia in any event, on 7 February, it is reasonable to expect that she would make any arrangements for a nanny. I do not accept the Applicant's evidence that his ex-wife is very busy at work, to be a reason why she cannot carry out responsibility for that matter.
3. The Applicant made no arrangements to purchase an airline ticket to Malaysia until after he was detained by the NSW police. As to the Applicant expecting to be released from detention on a bridging visa and then going with his wife to visit the Malaysian consulate in Sydney to obtain a temporary passport to allow him to return to Malaysia, he said that he had not yet applied for a temporary passport. He is in no position to know that consulate staff could not visit him in Villawood to obtain a temporary passport. He well knew that he did not have a current Malaysian passport for some years, and avoided contact with the Malaysian authorities in Australia to obtain a fresh passport, for fear of facing deportation. Again, given the purpose of migration laws that a foreign citizen have a valid visa to stay in Australia, that is not a sufficient reason for why the Applicant should be granted a bridging visa.
4. On the logistics of his living arrangements in order to depart Australia, I find that there is nothing involved in that which cannot be done by his brother. After initially raising at the hearing the need to make arrangements concerning a bond and rent for the rented premises in which he lives, he conceded that his brother is the lessee of the accommodation and the Applicant in fact paid no rent to anyone to live there.
5. All of the Applicant's possessions are located at the rented unit when his brother lives. I can see no reason why the brother cannot package the Applicant's belongings and send them to Malaysia. The vehicle which the Applicant drives to collect his daughter and drop her to school and pick her up from school is owned by his ex-wife. The Applicant has no need to sell that vehicle.
6. I acknowledge the fact that the Applicant has a former wife in Australia and a daughter for whom he has had care responsibilities. However, that was the case when the Applicant was knowingly an unlawful non-citizen, without a current visa and had not had one since his visitor visa expired in 2013. That was not enough to persuade him to regularise his migration position. He said at the hearing that he was sorry for staying in Australia without a valid visa and was willing to comply with any conditions that would be imposed on a bridging visa. However, that contrition has only come about since he was detected and detained and must be balanced against his egregious breach of Australia's migration laws.
7. In summary, the lengthy time in which the Applicant was knowingly in Australia without a valid visa and during which he made no attempt to either return to Malaysia or regularise his migration arrangements, is not balanced by any pressing need for him to have a bridging visa. The Applicant has no one to blame but himself for him being an unlawful non-citizen for many years.
8. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that at the time of application the Applicant was making or was the subject of acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. Therefore, the Applicant does not meet cl 050.212(2).

1. For these reasons, the Applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa.

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