Murphy (Migration)

The applicant, an unlawful non-citizen, sought review of a decision not to grant him a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The applicant had previously held several substantive visas, the last of which ceased in March 2018. Following this, he applied for a bridging visa, and was subsequently granted a Bridging E visa for the purpose of making arrangements to depart Australia. This visa expired in February 2019, rendering him an unlawful non-citizen. The review was heard by Michelle East.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Bridging E visa, specifically clauses 050.211 and 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether he continued to satisfy these criteria at the time of the decision. Clause 050.211 requires the applicant to be an unlawful non-citizen or holder of a specific bridging visa, and not an eligible non-citizen of a kind set out in certain regulations. Clause 050.212 requires the applicant to meet one of several specified grounds for seeking the visa, including making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met clause 050.211 as he was an unlawful non-citizen at the time of application and was not an eligible non-citizen of the excluded types. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met clause 050.212. The applicant had not specified any grounds for seeking the visa in his application, and attempts to interview him were unsuccessful. While a subsequent Bridging E visa was granted for the purpose of making arrangements to depart, it expired before the decision, and the Tribunal received no further communication to establish the grounds for the application or the genuineness of any departure arrangements. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.