2016603 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an application for a Bridging Visa E (BVE). The applicant sought the BVE on the grounds that they had made, or would make, a valid application for a substantive visa. The Tribunal considered evidence from the Department, the applicant, and their witnesses, as well as submissions from the applicant's migration agent. The applicant's visa history was extensive, including previous unsuccessful applications for protection visas and multiple grants of bridging visas, with a "no further stay" condition generally in effect since 2013.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 050 Bridging (General) visa at the time of the Tribunal's decision. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant satisfied either subclause 050.212(2) or 050.212(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Subclause 050.212(2) requires the Minister to be satisfied that acceptable arrangements to depart Australia are being made, while subclause 050.212(3) requires that a valid application for a substantive visa has been made and not finally determined, or that the Minister is satisfied the applicant will apply for such a visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was prevented by section 48B of the Migration Act 1958 from making a further application for a protection visa in the migration zone. Furthermore, the applicant was not entitled to apply for a partner visa onshore due to previous visa refusals and the refusal of waivers for the "no further stay" condition. Consequently, the applicant could not satisfy the requirement under subclause 050.212(3) that they had made or would make a valid application for a substantive visa that could be granted while they were in Australia. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated they met the criteria under subclause 050.212(2) regarding arrangements to depart Australia.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, concluding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for its grant.