2104732 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E visa (Subclass 050) by an unlawful non-citizen who had applied for a Subclass 866 protection visa. The applicant sought to meet the criteria under subclause 050.212(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires that the applicant has made a valid application for a substantive visa that has not been finally determined, or that the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant would apply for such a visa within a specified period. The applicant also needed to satisfy the criteria at both the time of application and the time of decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of cl.050.211 and cl.050.212 at the time of application, and whether these criteria continued to be met at the time of the decision, as required by cl.050.221. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the requirement to be interviewed by an authorised officer under cl.050.222 and, crucially, whether the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant would abide by any conditions imposed on the visa, as per cl.050.223.

The Tribunal found that the applicant satisfied cl.050.211 at both the time of application and decision, being an unlawful non-citizen not falling within specified excluded categories. The Tribunal determined that the applicant met cl.050.212(3) because their Subclass 866 protection visa application, made on the same day as the Bridging E visa application, was a substantive visa and was not finally determined, as it was under merits review by the Tribunal. This status continued at the time of the decision. The applicant also met cl.050.222 as they had been interviewed by an authorised officer. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would abide by the conditions of the visa, specifically the condition not to work, given the context of business loans in their home country requiring repayment and a fear of harm from a creditor, suggesting a deliberate intent to breach immigration laws.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the Bridging E visa was not granted.