Manuhaapai (Migration)

The applicant, a Tongan citizen, sought review of a decision to affirm the refusal of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had a history of holding various visas, including a Subclass 461 (New Zealand Citizen Family Relationship) visa, which was ultimately cancelled in May 2021. Following his release from imprisonment for contravening an apprehended violence order, the applicant became an unlawful non-citizen and subsequently applied for the Bridging E visa while in immigration detention.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Bridging E visa under clauses 050.211 and 050.212 of the Migration Regulations. Clause 050.211 requires the applicant to be an unlawful non-citizen or a holder of a specific bridging visa, and not an ineligible non-citizen. Clause 050.212 outlines the grounds for seeking such a visa, which typically relate to making arrangements to depart Australia, having a pending substantive visa application, or seeking review of a visa refusal or cancellation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met clause 050.211 as he was an unlawful non-citizen and not an ineligible non-citizen. However, the applicant failed to satisfy clause 050.212. While the applicant expressed a desire to apply for a partner visa to remain in Australia with his de facto partner and assist his Australian-born children, he explicitly stated it was not his intention to depart Australia. The Tribunal noted that the purpose of a Bridging E visa is generally to facilitate orderly departure or to allow for the determination of a substantive visa application or a review of a visa decision. The applicant's stated intention and lack of any pending substantive visa application or review meant he did not meet the prescribed grounds for the visa. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's financial hardship and his partner's reliance on the Disability Support Pension as factors impacting his ability to meet the costs of a partner visa application, but these did not alter the assessment against the specific criteria for the Bridging E visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the Bridging E visa.