2110613 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking review of a decision to refuse a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant, who was unrepresented, had applied for merits review of a protection visa application that had been finalised in December 2020, and as of July 2021, had no ongoing immigration matters and was subject to departure.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirement under clause 050.222 of the Migration Regulations 1994 to be interviewed by an authorised officer. The Tribunal examined the exceptions to this requirement, including circumstances where the applicant is not in immigration detention, holds a Bridging E visa, has applied for a substantive visa, and will not seek a further Bridging E visa with different conditions. The Tribunal also considered exceptions related to the unavailability of an authorised officer and specific circumstances concerning judicial or merits review applications for citizenship decisions, none of which were found to apply to the applicant.

The Tribunal found that while the delegate's decision record noted that an interview was necessary and did not occur, the applicant's circumstances did not fall within the exceptions to the interview requirement. Although the applicant claimed to have had limited data and a new mobile phone, and later stated he did not have a telephone, the Department file indicated a scheduled telephone interview on 30 July 2021, suggesting an attempt was made to conduct the interview. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the grant of the Bridging E visa, nor the Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, as he was not a relevant eligible non-citizen.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.