1. The issue in this case is whether, at the time of decision, the applicant satisfies cl 050.223. Before getting to that, the Tribunal will first address some of the other relevant criteria.

Immigration status of the applicant - cl 050.211

1. Clause 050.211 is met if, at the time of application:

(1) the applicant was an unlawful non-citizen, or the holder of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, or the holder of a Subclass 041 (Bridging (Non-applicant)) visa; and

(2) the applicant was not an eligible non-citizen of the kind set out in reg 2.20(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (17) or (18).

1. The applicant must continue to satisfy this criterion at the time of decision: cl 050.221.
2. 'Unlawful non-citizen' is defined in s 14 of the Act to mean a non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen. 'Lawful non-citizen' is in turn defined in s 13 of the Act as a non-citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect.
3. As the applicant is a non-citizen in the migration zone who does not hold a visa in effect, the last visa he held (the bridging visa B) having ceased on 19 December 2024, the applicant is an unlawful non-citizen and has been since 20 December 2024. Accordingly, the applicant satisfied cl 050.211(1) at the time of application.
4. Moreover, as there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant was ever an eligible non-citizen of the kind set out in reg 2.20(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (17) or (18), the Tribunal finds that he also satisfied cl 050.211(2) at the time of application.
5. Therefore, the applicant meets cl 050.211.

1. Clause 050.212 provides that 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.
2. In this case, the applicant is seeking to meet cl 050.212(3) on the basis of having made, in Australia, a valid application for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the applicant is in Australia and that application has not been finally determined. The applicant does not claim to meet any of the other alternative criteria in cl 050.212.
3. Information available before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant made a valid application on 15 February 2026 for the grant of Combined Partner Class UK Subclass 820/ Class BS Subclass 801 visas. Based on this, the Tribunal is satisfied that, at the time of application, the applicant met cl 050.212(3).

Whether the applicant continues to satisfy the time of application criteria - cl 050.221

1. Clause 050.221 requires the applicant to continue to satisfy the requirements of cl 050.211 and 050.212 at the time of decision. As there has been no change to the applicant's immigration status since the application for the grant of a bridging visa was made, and given the Combined Partner visa application he lodged has not been finally determined, the Tribunal finds that at the time of decision, the applicant continues to satisfy both cl 050.211 and cl 050.212.
2. Therefore, the applicant meets cl 050.221.

The requirement to be interviewed by an authorised officer - cl 050.222

1. Clause 050.222 requires that except in circumstances specified in subclauses (2)-(5), the applicant must be interviewed by an officer authorised for the purposes of that clause. The exceptions are:

(2) the applicant is not in immigration detention, holds a BVE, has made a valid application for a substantive visa, and will not be seeking a further BVE with different conditions;

(3) the applicant is not in immigration detention, does not hold (but previously held) a BVE, has made a valid application for a substantive visa, and an authorised officer was not available to interview the applicant at specific times;

(4) the applicant meets cl 050.212(4AAA) or continues to meet cl 050.212(4AB); or

(5) an officer authorised for the purposes of the clause has decided it is not necessary to interview the applicant.

1. None of the exceptions above applies to the applicant. In any event, the Tribunal notes that the applicant was interviewed by an authorised officer on 27 February 2026 before a decision to refuse to grant him a bridging visa was made. Therefore, the applicant meets cl 050.222.

Whether the applicant will abide by conditions - cl 050.223

1. 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. The 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.
2. 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) 70 ALD 289 at [15]-[16].
3. 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.
4. In this case, the Tribunal has determined that cl 050.617 applies to the applicant because none of the other provisions in Division 050.6 relevantly applies to the applicant based on the applicant's known circumstances. There are no mandatory conditions that must be imposed pursuant to cl 050.617. Instead, cl 050.617 provides that any one or more of the conditions specified therein may be imposed.
5. In addition to cl 050.617, cl 050.618 provides that condition 8564 (The holder must not engage in criminal conduct) may be imposed.
6. The delegate had indicated to the applicant that if he was granted a bridging visa, the following conditions would be imposed:
   • 8101 - no work
   • 8207 - no study
   • 8401 - report as directed
   • 8506 - notify new address 2 working days in advance of the change
   • 8564 - must not engage in criminal conduct
7. Having regard to the applicant's circumstances, the Tribunal considers that it is necessary and appropriate to impose conditions 8401, 8506 and 8564 on any bridging visa granted to the applicant. However, for the following reasons, the Tribunal does not consider that conditions 8101 and 8207 should be imposed.

1. Unlike an applicant who may be seeking the grant of a bridging visa on the basis of satisfying the requirement in cl 050.212(2) of making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, and in relation to whom conditions 8101 and 8207 are appropriate to remove the temptation to delay departure by working and/or studying, the applicant's circumstances are quite different. He is an applicant for Combined Partner visas, and the application was only lodged on 15 February 2026. According to the information and the visa processing time calculator available on the Department's website, it can take between 18 to 31 months from lodgement for the applicant's Class UK Subclass 820 visa (the first part of the Combined Partner visa application) to be processed.[2] That being the case, and in circumstance where the applicant has a wife as well as a young son in relation to whom he undoubtedly wishes to be able to financially support and provide for, the Tribunal does not believe it is reasonable or appropriate for condition 8101 to be imposed to deny the applicant the opportunity to make a living, even if available evidence suggests that the applicant will be able to subsist without the ability to work because of his wife Ms Ursino's steady income and considerable financial security.
2. Insofar as condition 8207 is concerned, putting aside the applicant's claim that he does not intend to study and has no particular interest in pursuing further study whether in relation to the English language or otherwise, the Tribunal does not consider that it is necessary or appropriate for condition 8207 to be imposed in the absence of a reason or an objective to be served. If there is no specific reason or legitimate objective that would be achieved by the imposition of condition 8207, it is the Tribunal's view that the discretionary power to impose the condition should not be exercised merely for its own sake.

1. In contrast to conditions 8101 and 8207, the Tribunal considers that it is entirely appropriate and reasonable for conditions 8401 (report as directed) and 8506 (notify new address) to be imposed on any bridging visa that the applicant might be granted because of his criminal history.
2. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's circumstances and notes the fact that the applicant has maintained lawful status in Australia until the cessation of his bridging visa B on 19 December 2024. Whilst it is not clear why the applicant has allowed his hitherto clean immigration record to be tarnished by allowing the bridging visa B to lapse and becoming an unlawful non-citizen, the Tribunal gives some weight to the applicant's maintenance of lawful status up until that point and that he appears to have complied with the conditions imposed on the visas he previously held.
3. More importantly, the Tribunal notes that the requirements of conditions 8401 and 8506 are very similar to the bail undertaking to report that the applicant was subject to and the address change notification obligation applicable to his parole order, both of which he appears to have complied with to date. Based on this, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by conditions 8401 and 8506 if granted a bridging visa E.

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by condition 8564, which requires the applicant not to engage in any criminal conduct.
2. The Tribunal does not take lightly the fact that the applicant was convicted of the offence 'Supplied a prohibited drug'. His custodial sentence of 3 years and 10 months reflects the seriousness of that offence, and the Tribunal places significant weight on this.
3. However, the Tribunal also places weight on the applicant initially being granted bail and then later released early on parole before completing his full custodial sentence. There is no evidence that the applicant did not comply with the undertakings and conditions of his bail, which was secured with a surety of $100,000 offered by his friend Mr Depperu. Relevantly also, the applicant's parole order indicates that a decision was made to release him early because, amongst other things, he was assessed as a low reoffending risk, he does not have prior criminal history, and his prison conduct demonstrates compliance with directions.
4. The Tribunal is cognisant that the Prisoners Review Board's parole decision may have been influenced by their misapprehension that the applicant's visa had been cancelled and that he was on course to be removed from Australia by the Department. Had the Prisoners Review Board understood otherwise, it may have caused the Board to rethink the applicant's suitability for release into the community before he has served his full custodial sentence. Even this does not vitiate the Board's assessment that the applicant has a low risk of reoffending and that his good behaviour in prison demonstrates compliance with directions.
5. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant's apparent failure to comply with the spirit and intent of the obligation of his parole order by failing to notify the Prisoners Review Board of his Combined Partner visa applications - which is a material change that may cause the Board to reassess his ongoing suitability for release into the community - weighs against him. The Tribunal rejects his representative's submission that the obligation does not relevantly apply for being generic in character. The fact that the obligation is misdirected based on a flawed understanding of the applicant's visa situation does not make it generic. Further, it would be ludicrous to suggest that an obligation is incapable of application for being generic, because it implies that the obligations falling under 'standard obligations', including the obligation at item 1 that the representative sought to draw the Tribunal's attention to, also do not apply.
6. Despite all of the above, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant's omission to notify the Prisoners Review Board of the Combined Partner visa applications, or at least inquire about the Board's potential interest in being informed of the matter, was not the result of deliberate non-compliance. The Tribunal accepts from the evidence available that the applicant understands that any re-offending or non-compliance with the conditions of his parole would result in him returning to prison to serve the remainder of his original custodial sentence, and he is strongly motivated by his desire to be with his wife, son, other family members and friends not to re-offend.
7. Therefore, returning to the question ultimately before the Tribunal, which is whether the applicant will likely comply with requirement of condition 8564 not to engage in criminal conduct if granted a bridging visa subject to this condition, the Tribunal is satisfied on a balanced consideration of all the evidence before it that the applicant will comply with this condition. The fact of the applicant's conviction and sentencing for one offence, and his omission to notify and avail the Prisoners Review Board of the opportunity to reassess his ongoing suitability for release in light of his Combined Partner visa applications (which the Tribunal has accepted was not deliberate), do not in the Tribunal's opinion outweigh the cumulative considerations of his lack of propensity for re-offending, his general history of immigration compliance, his general compliance and good conduct pre- and post-sentencing, and his strong motivations to avoid jeopardising the opportunity to live in the community with his family and friends.
8. In conclusion, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions imposed on the bridging visa E if granted. Therefore, he meets cl 050.223.
9. Given these findings, the appropriate course is to set the decision aside and remit the visa application to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa:
   • cl 050.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;
   • cl 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;
   • cl 050.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations;
   • cl 050.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; and
   • cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
2. The Tribunal also orders the primary decision maker:
   • to indicate to the applicant that conditions 8401, 8506 and 8564 will be imposed if the visa is granted.

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Munashe Rusamo

[1] As noted in the applicant's immigration history, although the applicant was considered for possible cancellation of the bridging visa B he held under s 116 of the Act, cancellation of the visa was not ultimately pursued, and the cancellation action was administratively finalised.

[2] According to the guide provided by the processing time calculator on the Department's website, 50% of Subclass 820 partner visa applications lodged on 15 February 2026 will be processed in 18 months, and 90% will be processed in 31 months.