1822276 (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the primary criteria for the visa, specifically whether they were making or the subject of acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, or whether they had made or would make a valid application for a substantive visa. The matter was heard by a Member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant continued to meet the primary criteria for the Bridging E visa at the time of the decision, as stipulated by clause 050.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing whether the applicant satisfied either clause 050.212(2), concerning acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, or clause 050.212(3), relating to the application for or intention to apply for a substantive visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delegate had initially found the applicant met clause 050.212(2) based on statements of intent to depart after marriage and a voluntary request for removal, the applicant's overall conduct and stated intentions suggested a desire to remain in Australia. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had expressed a desire to apply for further onshore visa options, which conflicted with the requirement for acceptable arrangements to depart. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that bridging visas should not be used to circumvent legislative intent, particularly where the applicant was subject to a statutory bar and their previous Protection visa application had been determined, rendering them unable to apply for a substantive visa onshore.

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