Surjit Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa and a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa, brought before the Migration Review Tribunal. The applicant sought merits review of a decision not to grant these visas. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant continued to satisfy the criteria for the grant of these bridging visas at the time of the Tribunal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant continued to satisfy the "time of application criteria" as stipulated by clause 050.221 of the relevant regulations. This clause requires an applicant to continue to satisfy the requirements of clauses 050.211 and 050.212 at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 051 visa, specifically whether they were a "relevant eligible non-citizen" under clause 051.211.

The Tribunal reasoned that movement records indicated the applicant had departed Australia on 30 January 2020 and remained offshore. The applicant was invited to respond to this potentially adverse information but failed to do so. The Tribunal found that by being offshore, the applicant did not continue to satisfy clause 050.211(1)(a), which requires the applicant to be an unlawful non-citizen. Furthermore, records indicated the applicant no longer had an ongoing application for judicial review, meaning they did not continue to satisfy the criteria in clauses 050.211 and 050.212, and therefore did not meet clause 050.221. Regarding the Subclass 051 visa, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was not a relevant eligible non-citizen as defined by clause 051.211. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.