2007324 (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of such a visa, specifically in relation to grounds for ministerial intervention. The matter was heard by Ann Duffield, Senior Member, of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied any of the alternative criteria set out in subclauses 050.212(2) to (9) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which are relevant to applications for ministerial intervention. The applicant did not claim to meet any criteria other than those relating to ministerial intervention. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the specific requirements of subclauses 050.212(5B), (6), (6AA), and (6B), as well as subclause 050.212(2).

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of subclause 050.212(5B) because he had already made two previous requests for ministerial intervention, whereas this subclause requires that there have been no prior requests under section 48B or sections 345, 351, or 417 of the Migration Act 1958. Similarly, the applicant did not meet subclause 050.212(6) as his previous requests for ministerial intervention, made on 21 December 2011 and 21 July 2016, had already been finalised and were not made prior to 1 July 2009, nor did he hold a bridging visa in relation to those requests. Subclause 050.212(6AA) was not applicable as the Minister had not intervened in the applicant's previous requests. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet subclause 050.212(6B) for similar reasons regarding the timing of previous requests and the absence of a relevant bridging visa. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criterion in subclause 050.212(2) concerning making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 050.212.