2114408 (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Bridging C visa made by an applicant who had previously applied for a protection visa. The Department had refused the protection visa application, a decision affirmed by the Tribunal, and the Federal Circuit and Family Court had dismissed the applicant's subsequent application for judicial review. The applicant had held bridging visas, but at the time of applying for the Bridging C visa, he did not hold any substantive visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 030.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the grant of a Bridging C visa, and whether he satisfied the condition under clause 030.411 that he be in Australia but not in immigration clearance. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's previous protection visa application had been finally determined and if he had made a valid application for another substantive visa that could be granted while he was in Australia and which had not been finally determined.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's protection visa application was finally determined in September 2021, and there was no evidence of a valid application for any other substantive visa that could be granted in Australia and had not been finally determined. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under subclause 030.212(2) or 030.212(2A). The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not provided comments requested under section 359A of the Migration Act 1958, leading to the decision being made without further steps to obtain comments, as permitted by section 359C and 360(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging C (Class WC) visa.