1721393 (Migration)

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of their application for a Bridging A (Class WA) visa, subclass 010. The applicant had applied for this bridging visa while holding a substantive visa and subsequently made applications for protection visas.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was eligible to be granted a Bridging A visa under Regulation 2.21(1)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This regulation requires an applicant to be the holder of a substantive visa at the time of making a valid application in Australia for another substantive visa. The court was required to determine if the applicant's subsequent applications for protection visas, made after their initial application for the Bridging A visa, affected their eligibility for the Bridging A visa.

The court reasoned that Regulation 2.21(1)(b) establishes a clear temporal requirement: the applicant must hold a substantive visa at the precise moment they lodge a valid application for another substantive visa. The applicant's argument that their subsequent protection visa applications should be considered in conjunction with their Bridging A visa application was rejected. The court found that the applicant did not hold a substantive visa at the time they made their applications for protection visas, which were the "another substantive visa" referred to in the regulation. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet the eligibility criteria for the Bridging A visa.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.