Karsten (Migration)

The applicant, a German citizen, sought a Bridging A visa. The dispute concerned whether his application for a permanent partner visa (subclass 801) was still "finally determined" for the purposes of the Bridging A visa criteria, given that he had lodged an application for judicial review of a previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision affirming the refusal of his partner visa. The matter came before the Tribunal for review of the decision to refuse the Bridging A visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the meaning of "finally determined" in the context of clause 010.211(2) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether an application for a substantive visa, which has been refused by the Tribunal but is the subject of ongoing judicial review proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court, could be considered "not finally determined" for the purpose of granting a Bridging A visa. The applicant contended that judicial review constituted a form of review that meant the substantive visa application was not yet finally determined.

The Tribunal reasoned that the phrase "finally determined" in clause 010.211(2) referred to a stage where a decision on the substantive visa application was no longer subject to any form of review, including judicial review. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had conceded he did not satisfy other criteria for the Bridging A visa, specifically clauses 010.211(4), (5), and (6). Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's bridging visa had ceased on 3 June 2021, which was prior to the date of the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the requirements of clause 010.211(2) or other relevant clauses.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Bridging A (Class WA) visa.