Taufa (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a New Zealand citizen to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the refusal of his Bridging E (Class WE) visa application. The applicant had a significant criminal history, including convictions for serious offences and periods of imprisonment. Following his release from prison and subsequent immigration detention, he had sought an extension to lodge a substantive visa application, which expired without him lodging such an application. He then applied for a Bridging E visa, stating an intention to apply for a Parent visa, which was refused by the Department.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for a Subclass 050 Bridging E visa, specifically in light of section 195 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This section imposes limitations on the ability of individuals in immigration detention to apply for visas, generally restricting them to Bridging or Protection visas after certain timeframes have passed. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant's stated intention to apply for a Parent visa could satisfy the criteria for the Bridging E visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had been informed of the implications of section 195 upon entering detention and had been granted a five-day extension to lodge a substantive visa application, which expired on 7 December 2021. Despite his stated intentions and reasons for not lodging a substantive visa application within that period, the Tribunal found that the applicant was now prevented from applying for any visa other than a Bridging or Protection visa due to the operation of section 195. The Tribunal relied on the principle established in *Liu v MIAC*, which held that bridging visas should not be used to circumvent the legislative intent of section 195 to allow an applicant to be released from detention. As the applicant had not applied for a substantive visa, he could not satisfy the criteria for a Bridging E visa that would facilitate such an application.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. The Tribunal also noted that the application was not for a Subclass 051 Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant) visa, and the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for that visa either.