1917990 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking to affirm a decision regarding a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050. The applicant's student enrolment had been cancelled, and the core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for this bridging visa, specifically clause 050.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied clause 050.212(3) of the Migration Regulations, which pertains to having made a valid application for a substantive visa or satisfying the Tribunal that such an application would be made within a specified period. A substantive visa is defined as any visa other than a bridging, criminal justice, or enforcement visa. The Tribunal also had to consider the definition of a "finally determined" visa application and the provisions of section 195 of the Migration Act 1958 concerning the timeframe for lodging visa applications while in detention.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence the applicant had made a valid application for a substantive visa. While the applicant expressed an intention to apply for a partner visa, this intention was not sufficient. The applicant had been informed of their rights under section 194 and the operation of section 195 of the Act in August 2018. Section 195 allows a detainee to apply for a visa within two working days of compliance with section 194, or within a further five working days if they inform an officer in writing of their intention to apply. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had not informed an officer in writing of their intention to apply within the prescribed two-day period. Consequently, the applicant could not lodge a further substantive visa application after the expiry of these time limits, except for a Protection Visa, which had been refused and not reviewed. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria under clause 050.212(3).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.