Muhammad (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the refusal of a Bridging B (Class WB) visa. The applicant sought the visa to travel overseas and return to Australia. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 020.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which requires the applicant to be the holder of a Bridging A (Class WA) or Bridging B (Class WB) visa.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit Court was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for the Bridging B visa at the time of the decision. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicant held a Bridging A or Bridging B visa at the time the delegate made the decision to refuse the application, and subsequently, at the time the Tribunal made its decision on review. The applicant had lodged his Bridging B visa application on 10 July 2023, and at that time, he held a Bridging B visa that expired on the same day.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant held a Bridging B visa when he lodged his application, this visa expired on 10 July 2023. The delegate's decision to refuse the visa was made after this expiry. Crucially, the Tribunal found there was no evidence that the applicant had been granted a Bridging A or Bridging B visa subsequent to the delegate's decision and prior to the Tribunal making its own decision on review. Therefore, the applicant did not satisfy clause 020.211 at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the Bridging B (Class WB) visa.