FASI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) by an applicant who had been in Australia unlawfully for an extended period and had faced criminal charges. The delegate of the Minister refused the application, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the visa, specifically regarding acceptable arrangements to depart Australia and the intention to apply for a substantive visa. The applicant sought review of this decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the delegate erred in finding that the applicant did not satisfy subclause 050.212(2) of the Regulations, which requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant is making, or is the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia, and whether the delegate erred in finding that the applicant did not satisfy subclause 050.212(3), which requires the applicant to have made a valid application for a substantive visa or that the Minister is satisfied the applicant will apply for one.

The delegate's reasoning was that the applicant was not seeking the bridging visa on the basis of making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the applicant had applied for a substantive visa that could be granted in Australia, nor was the delegate satisfied that the applicant intended to do so within a specified timeframe. The delegate noted that the applicant had been unlawful since November 2016 and had not lodged a substantive visa application despite stating an intention to do so to facilitate a substantive visa application. Consequently, the delegate concluded that the applicant had ample opportunity to apply for a substantive visa and had failed to do so, and therefore would not do so if granted the bridging visa. The delegate also found that the applicant did not meet numerous other subclauses within 050.212.