1828124 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the applications for judicial review of decisions to refuse Bridging E (Class WE) visas made by a citizen of Bangladesh. The applicant, an unauthorised maritime arrival, had previously applied for a protection visa, which was refused and affirmed on merits review. His subsequent judicial review of that refusal was finally determined by the High Court in June 2018. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for a subclass 051 Bridging (Protection visa applicant) visa, and a subclass 050 Bridging (General) visa, in relation to two separate applications for these visas made in August 2018 and August 2020.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant met the eligibility requirements under regulation 2.20(7) to (11) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for a subclass 051 visa, and similar provisions for a subclass 050 visa. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant was an eligible non-citizen, and whether the requirement that a protection visa application had not been finally determined, or that judicial review was ongoing, was met at the time of each bridging visa application. The Tribunal also considered its power under section 363(2) of the Migration Act 1958 to combine the reviews of multiple Part 5-reviewable decisions made in respect of the same person.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant met the initial criteria of being an unauthorised boat arrival, the critical factor was the status of his protection visa application and any related judicial review. As the High Court had finally determined his judicial review application in June 2018, this meant that at the time of his first bridging visa application in August 2018, and his second application in August 2020, the condition that a protection visa application had not been finally determined, or that judicial review was ongoing, was not satisfied. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's limited understanding of the processes and the fact that his original migration agent for the first application was uncontactable. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to combine the two applications for review, finding it appropriate given the identical facts and law, and the applicant's representation. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.