When a bridging visa e decision is refused or cancelled, the applicant can ask the tribunal to review it. Our pipeline holds 72 such decisions (2024 to 2026), covering the bridging visa for people making arrangements to leave or resolve their status. Here is what actually happened in them, straight from the published record.
These figures describe decisions that have already been made. Every case turns on its own facts and evidence, so they are a picture of the past, not a prediction. This is general information, not migration advice.
How to read these decisions
The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) reviews decisions made by the Department of Home Affairs. Until 14 October 2024 it was called the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). When someone is refused a visa or has one cancelled, they can often ask the tribunal to look at the decision again.
- Upheld / Affirmed
- The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stands (the applicant lost).
- Set aside
- The tribunal disagreed with the original decision and replaced it (the applicant won).
- Remitted
- The case was sent back to Home Affairs to decide again, with directions (a fresh chance for the applicant).
- Overturned
- The original decision was reversed. On these pages we group overturned decisions under "Set aside" above.
Citations follow a simple pattern: [2026] ARTA 315 means decision number 315 of the tribunal in 2026. Older decisions use AAT in place of ARTA.
What the tribunal decided
Across these 72 decisions, the tribunal confirmed the original decision 62% of the time, set it aside 8% of the time, and remitted it for reconsideration 29% of the time.
| Outcome | Decisions | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Upheld | 40 | 55.6% |
| Remitted | 21 | 29.2% |
| Set aside | 6 | 8.3% |
| Affirmed | 5 | 6.9% |
Counts from 72 decisions captured by our pipeline, as at 2026-06-28. Outcome is the result recorded in each decision.
Decisions by year
How many decisions our pipeline holds for each year, and how often the original decision was set aside that year.
| Year | Decisions | Set aside |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 14 | 14% |
| 2025 | 19 | 0% |
| 2024 | 39 | 10% |
Most-cited legislation and rules
The provisions of the Migration Act and Regulations cited most often across the 8 decisions on this topic that record their citations. The number is how many of those decisions cite it.
Recent decisions
The 40 most recent decisions on this topic. Select a decision to read the full stored case story: the situation, the question before the tribunal, and what the tribunal established, straight from the record.
[2026] ARTA 9872026-06-03AffirmedThe applicant's substantial criminal record, including violent and driving offences, was in dispute.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Sri Lankan national, had his application for a Bridging E visa refused due to failing the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's substantial criminal record, including violent and driving offences, was in dispute.
What the tribunal established
A non-citizen who does not pass the character test may have their visa application refused if they pose an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.
[2026] ARTA 9562026-06-02AffirmedWhether the visa cancellation should be revoked on a ground other than the character test.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
An Iranian citizen holding a Bridging E visa was detained after the visa was cancelled following a conviction for entering a dwelling with intent to steal.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the visa cancellation should be revoked on a ground other than the character test.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501CA the Minister may revoke a cancellation if the person passes the character test or if there is another reason, and the Tribunal must balance all relevant considerations in line with Direction 110 and s 501(1).
[2026] ARTA 9592026-05-21AffirmedWhether there is another reason under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A Sri Lankan male on a Class WE Subclass 050 Bridging E visa was detained after his visa was mandatorily cancelled following a conviction for aggravated causing serious harm.
The question before the tribunal
Whether there is another reason under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.
What the tribunal established
When considering revocation of a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA, the decision‑maker must apply Direction 110, giving primary weight to the protection of the Australian community and other primary considerations, and may only revoke if the overall balance of considerations justifies it.
[2026] ARTA 7922026-05-13Set asideThe applicant sought to have the mandatory cancellation of his visa revoked.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, had his visa mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant sought to have the mandatory cancellation of his visa revoked.
What the tribunal established
The Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision if the person makes representations and satisfies the character test or there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
[2026] ARTA 6052026-04-20Set asideWhether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and if the discretion to refuse the visa should be exercised.
The result
The tribunal decided in the applicant's favour: it set aside the original decision and replaced it with its own.
The situation
A non‑citizen convicted of murder and detained seeks a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant passes the character test under s 501 and if the discretion to refuse the visa should be exercised.
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(1) the decision‑maker must apply Direction 110, giving primary weight to protection of the Australian community and the seriousness of family‑violence conduct, which can outweigh any counter‑vailing considerations.
[2026] ARTA 8772026-04-10AffirmedThe applicant's application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa was refused due to concerns about his ability to comply with visa conditions, particularly the requirement…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, who has been in Australia on various visas since 2014, had his student visa cancelled in 2023 and has been living in Australia without a valid visa since December 2024.
The question before the tribunal
The applicant's application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa was refused due to concerns about his ability to comply with visa conditions, particularly the requirement not to work and to notify the Department of any change of address.
What the tribunal established
The Minister must be satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions imposed on a bridging visa.
[2026] ARTA 7532026-04-09AffirmedThe delegate refused the Bridging Visa E on the basis that the applicant failed the character test under s 501(6)(d)(i).
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
A 33-year‑old Kenyan man in immigration detention with a history of multiple driving offences, alcohol‑related offences and family‑violence incidents applied for a Bridging Visa E.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the Bridging Visa E on the basis that the applicant failed the character test under s 501(6)(d)(i).
What the tribunal established
Under s 501(1) the Minister may refuse a visa if the person does not pass the character test, and s 501(6)(d)(i) specifies that a risk of engaging in criminal conduct is a ground for failure.
[2026] ARTA 4992026-03-18UpheldThe central issue was whether the delegate correctly exercised discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visa based on the applicant's character.
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Zambia, sought review of a decision to refuse a Bridging E (Class WE) (subclass 050) visa. The delegate of the Minister refused the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the delegate correctly exercised discretion under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 to refuse the visa based on the applicant's character.
What the tribunal established
When assessing character under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 110, including the risk to the Australian community and the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia.
[2026] ARTA 5952026-03-17RemittedWhether the applicant satisfies clause 050.223 – that he will abide by any conditions imposed on a Subclass 050 visa.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
A 49‑year‑old Italian man in immigration detention on parole after a drug conviction, recently married, seeks a Subclass 050 bridging visa while a partner visa is pending.
The question before the tribunal
Whether the applicant satisfies clause 050.223 – that he will abide by any conditions imposed on a Subclass 050 visa.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal must be satisfied at the time of decision that the applicant will comply with any conditions imposed on a Subclass 050 bridging visa, taking into account past conduct, risk of re‑offending and any mitigating circumstances.
[2026] ARTA 3442026-02-09UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clauses 050.212 and 050.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050). The applicant's passport was lost and expired, and they had not made arrangements to depart Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clauses 050.212 and 050.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Bridging E visa must demonstrate they are making, or are the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.
[2026] ARTA 5362026-02-02UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a subclass 050 visa, specifically cl 050.222 of the Migration Regulations, which required an interview…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (subclass 050) after applying for a protection visa. The applicant failed to attend a scheduled interview with an authorised officer.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a subclass 050 visa, specifically cl 050.222 of the Migration Regulations, which required an interview with an authorised officer.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa must attend an interview with an authorised officer unless their circumstances fall within specific exceptions outlined in the Migration Regulations.
[2026] ARTA 1942026-01-21UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 050.212(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he had made acceptable…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) after overstaying a visitor visa. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant had made acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of cl 050.212(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether he had made acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a bridging visa must demonstrate that they are making, or are the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.
[2026] ARTA 1262026-01-07RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa, specifically concerning non-compliance with visa conditions…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision refusing a Bridging E (Class WE) visa. He had been in Australia for a lengthy period without a valid visa and was detained during a routine traffic stop.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa, specifically concerning non-compliance with visa conditions and being an unlawful non-citizen.
What the tribunal established
A bridging visa may be granted to an unlawful non-citizen if they meet the criteria and arrangements are in place to ensure compliance with visa conditions.
[2026] ARTA 552026-01-05UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria in cl 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding acceptable…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Swedish national, applied for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (subclass 050) after his partner visa was refused. He sought review of the decision refusing the bridging visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria in cl 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding acceptable arrangements to depart Australia.
What the tribunal established
The Tribunal's power on review is limited to the specific criteria outlined in the Migration Regulations, and it does not have a general discretionary power to grant a visa based on humanitarian grounds.
[2025] ARTA 27922025-12-23UpheldThe central issue was whether the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of India, had his Class WE Subclass 050 Bridging E visa cancelled due to failing the character test. The Tribunal reviewed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 was correct, considering the character test and Ministerial Direction No 110.
What the tribunal established
When considering visa cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must weigh the primary and other considerations in Ministerial Direction 110 to determine whether to revoke the cancellation.
[2025] ARTA 29392025-12-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Bridging E visa, specifically cl 050.212 of the Migration Regulations, including making acceptable…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought review of a decision refusing to grant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050). The applicant had previously had a substantive visa refused and was subject to immigration detention.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Bridging E visa, specifically cl 050.212 of the Migration Regulations, including making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia and having made a request to the Minister.
What the tribunal established
An applicant who has previously had a substantive visa refused while in Australia is barred from making further applications under ss 48 and 48A of the Migration Act.
[2025] ARTA 27332025-12-15UpheldThe central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 110 and the applicant's…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant held a Class WE Subclass 050 Bridging E visa. The Minister had made a decision to mandatorily cancel the applicant's visa because they did not pass the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 110 and the applicant's character.
What the tribunal established
When considering the mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501 of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must consider Ministerial Direction No. 110, weighing the protection of the Australian community against other relevant factors.
[2025] ARTA 24112025-11-06UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the character test under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, considering his history of offending and periods as an…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a citizen of Tonga, sought review of a decision to refuse his Bridging E (General) (Class WE) (Subclass 050) visa. The delegate was not satisfied the Applicant passed the character test.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the character test under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958, considering his history of offending and periods as an unlawful non-citizen.
What the tribunal established
When assessing an applicant's character, the protection of the Australian community is generally given greater weight than other primary considerations, especially when considering family violence offending.
[2025] ARTA 16212025-08-19UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Bridging E visa, specifically cl 050.212 and cl 050.221 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) after applying on 8 July 2025. The applicant had also applied for judicial review of a decision to refuse a substantive visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for the Bridging E visa, specifically cl 050.212 and cl 050.221 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, and whether the applicant would comply with visa conditions.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Bridging E visa must satisfy the criteria at the time of application and continue to satisfy those criteria at the time of the decision.
[2025] ARTA 17462025-08-05RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 visa, specifically cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, who was in immigration detention, applied for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) after his student visa was cancelled. The Tribunal reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 visa, specifically cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant will abide by the visa conditions.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Bridging E visa application, the decision-maker must be satisfied that the applicant will abide by the conditions imposed on the visa.
[2025] ARTA 27972025-07-25UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding requests for…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) after a Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal. The applicant was in Australia and had applied for a visa on 6 January 2025.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding requests for Ministerial intervention.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Bridging E visa must meet the specific criteria outlined in the Migration Regulations, including demonstrating that they have made a valid request for Ministerial intervention if applicable.
[2025] ARTA 23822025-07-16UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 visa, specifically cl 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, specifically Subclass 050, after applying on 1 July 2025. The delegate refused the visa, citing the applicant's adverse immigration history and non-compliance with visa conditions.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 visa, specifically cl 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including the time of application requirements.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa must satisfy all the criteria specified in Part 050 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 to be granted the visa.
[2025] ARTA 10642025-06-17UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant could satisfy the requirement to comply with condition 8564 – must not engage in criminal conduct, assessed under s73 of the…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was in immigration detention and applied on 16 May 2025 for a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 (General) visa, seeking to support his Australian citizen partner, but had a history of criminal offences and bail breaches.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant could satisfy the requirement to comply with condition 8564 – must not engage in criminal conduct, assessed under s73 of the Migration Act and cl 050.223 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for Bridging E (Class WE) visas must demonstrate they will comply with condition 8564 and meet cl 050.223; a history of criminal conduct and lack of remorse will result in refusal.
[2025] ARTA 9182025-05-14RemittedThe decision was based on the applicant’s alleged inability to comply with conditions 8506 and 8564 under s 73 and s 269 of the Migration Act.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
Mr Van Diep Hoang was an onshore applicant seeking a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 visa after a refusal, and was unemployed but had a prospective family‑friend job and family ties in Australia.
The question before the tribunal
The decision was based on the applicant’s alleged inability to comply with conditions 8506 and 8564 under s 73 and s 269 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate they will comply with conditions 8506 and 8564 satisfy clause 050.223 and the tribunal may remit the decision rather than impose a security.
[2025] ARTA 9172025-05-12UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied subclause 050.212(3)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (and related subclauses) for a Bridging E…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Applicant Gibson Lui Melerave was an unlawful non‑citizen whose seasonal worker visa had expired and was seeking a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 visa onshore while in detention.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied subclause 050.212(3)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (and related subclauses) for a Bridging E visa under s73 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate a genuine intention to apply for a substantive visa within the period allowed to satisfy subclause 050.212(3)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
[2025] ARTA 6432025-04-14RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the interview requirement in cl 050.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant was onshore holding a Bridging E (Class WE) visa and applied for a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa after a telephone interview with an authorised officer.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the interview requirement in cl 050.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
What the tribunal established
Clause 050.222 of the Migration Regulations requires only that an interview take place; the manner or depth of the applicant’s participation is irrelevant.
[2025] ARTA 4762025-03-20UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Bridging E visa under clause 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050) after applying on 26 November 2024. The delegate refused the visa because the applicant did not meet the criteria for a Bridging E visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Bridging E visa under clause 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding making arrangements to depart Australia or applying for a substantive visa.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Bridging E visa must satisfy the criteria outlined in clause 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including making arrangements to depart Australia or applying for a substantive visa.
[2025] ARTA 6842025-03-14UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant could satisfy the mandatory no‑work condition, specifically the requirement in cl 050.223 of the Migration Regulations, to be…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant applied onshore for a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa while in immigration detention and was financially responsible for an extended family.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant could satisfy the mandatory no‑work condition, specifically the requirement in cl 050.223 of the Migration Regulations, to be granted the visa.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must demonstrate they will comply with the mandatory no‑work condition to be granted a Subclass 050 Bridging (General) visa.
[2025] ARTA 4802025-03-06RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria of cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether they would abide by the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, who arrived in Australia on a student visa, applied for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050). The delegate refused the visa, being unconvinced the applicant would abide by visa conditions.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria of cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically whether they would abide by the conditions of the Bridging visa.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Bridging E visa must demonstrate that they will abide by the conditions of the visa, including not engaging in criminal conduct.
[2025] ARTA 3762025-03-04RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 visa, specifically clause 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, including…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa after his student visa was cancelled and he was an unlawful non-citizen. He had been working without work rights and faced criminal charges.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 visa, specifically clause 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, including conditions regarding work and criminal conduct.
What the tribunal established
When assessing a Bridging Visa applicant, the Tribunal will consider the applicant's genuine commitment to abide by visa conditions, taking into account their family obligations and any mitigating circumstances.
[2025] ARTA 8092025-02-12RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s73 Migration Act, citing unsatisfactory compliance with discretionary condition 8564, the holder must not engage in criminal conduct.
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant applied on 23 January 2025 for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, specifically seeking a Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa while onshore, with a history of serious offences but supported by a partner and counselling.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s73 Migration Act, citing unsatisfactory compliance with discretionary condition 8564, the holder must not engage in criminal conduct.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who meet cl 050.223 criteria can be granted a Subclass 050 bridging visa even if they have a criminal history, provided they demonstrate genuine insight and compliance mechanisms.
[2025] ARTA 9602025-02-11UpheldThe delegate refused the visa under s73 of the Migration Act, finding the applicant would not satisfy the compliance requirement of cl 050.223 of the Migration…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, detained and with a criminal record including drug convictions, applied onshore for a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 visa while his relationship had ceased and he struggled with a gambling addiction.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s73 of the Migration Act, finding the applicant would not satisfy the compliance requirement of cl 050.223 of the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must satisfy the compliance criteria in cl 050.223 of the Migration Regulations to be granted a Subclass 050 bridging visa; security or personal incentives are insufficient without credible evidence of likely compliance.
[2025] ARTA 9242025-01-08UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria under s 73 of the Migration Act and the specific regulatory requirements cl 050.212 and cl 050.223 of…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
Mr Tuna Alaman, an onshore applicant with a history of criminal convictions and immigration detention, applied on 16 December 2024 for a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 visa while also seeking a medical treatment visa.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria under s 73 of the Migration Act and the specific regulatory requirements cl 050.212 and cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa must satisfy both the statutory criteria in s 73 and the detailed regulatory conditions in cl 050.212 and cl 050.223, otherwise the visa can be refused.
[2024] ARTA 1602024-12-06RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 visa, specifically cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant sought a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050). The delegate refused the visa because they were not satisfied the applicant would comply with the no work condition.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 050 visa, specifically cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, including the mandatory no work condition.
What the tribunal established
An applicant for a Bridging E visa will be considered to meet the criteria if the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will abide by the visa conditions.
[2024] AATA 40222024-10-10UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria in cl 050.212(3) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a valid substantive visa application…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, Preston Evans Lea, was unlawfully residing in Australia for over 18 months without a valid visa and applied on 27 September 2024 for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa (Subclass 050).
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria in cl 050.212(3) of the Migration Regulations, which requires a valid substantive visa application, under the authority of s73 of the Migration Act.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who have been unlawfully present and have not lodged a valid substantive visa application cannot meet the cl 050.212 criteria for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
[2024] AATA 39982024-10-09UpheldThe central issue was the refusal under s 73 of the Migration Act because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 050.212, cl 050.221 (and also cl 051.211)…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant was detained in an immigration detention centre and applied on 24 September 2024 for a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 (General) visa while onshore.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was the refusal under s 73 of the Migration Act because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 050.212, cl 050.221 (and also cl 051.211) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants for a Subclass 050 Bridging (General) visa must meet the detailed criteria in cl 050.212 and cl 050.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, otherwise the visa must be refused.
[2024] AATA 39952024-10-02RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 73 of the Migration Act, relying on the applicant’s inability to satisfy cl 050.212(3) because of the s 195 bar on substantive visa…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant, an unlawful non‑citizen in detention, applied on 17 September 2024 for a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 visa while facing an assault charge and intending to lodge a partner visa later.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 73 of the Migration Act, relying on the applicant’s inability to satisfy cl 050.212(3) because of the s 195 bar on substantive visa applications while detained.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can demonstrate they meet the specific subclass criteria in Schedule 2 may have a refusal remitted even when a s 195 bar would otherwise apply.
[2024] AATA 39972024-10-02RemittedThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria under cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations to be granted a Subclass 050 bridging visa…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant is a Tongan citizen who entered Australia on a visitor visa in 2018, has become an unlawful non‑citizen after multiple visa lapses, and is seeking a third Bridging E (Subclass 050) visa while his de‑facto partner and son are Australian citizens.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria under cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations to be granted a Subclass 050 bridging visa despite his unlawful status and criminal conviction.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who meet the specific criteria in cl 050.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations may be granted a Subclass 050 bridging visa even when they are unlawful non‑citizens, provided appropriate conditions are imposed.
[2024] AATA 36852024-09-23UpheldThe central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the requirement in s 73 of the Migration Act and clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations not to engage in…
The result
The tribunal agreed with the original decision. The refusal or cancellation stood and the applicant was unsuccessful.
The situation
The applicant, a Pakistani national previously on a student visa and later refused a protection visa, was in immigration detention and applied on 4 September 2024 for a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 visa while facing criminal charges.
The question before the tribunal
The central issue was whether the applicant satisfied the requirement in s 73 of the Migration Act and clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations not to engage in criminal conduct.
What the tribunal established
Applicants must meet the statutory condition not to engage in criminal conduct under clause 050.223 to be granted a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
[2024] AATA 43052024-09-16RemittedThe delegate refused the visa under s 73 of the Migration Act because the applicant was not satisfied that she met the requirements of cl 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the…
The result
The tribunal sent the case back to Home Affairs to be decided again with directions. The applicant got another chance.
The situation
The applicant was an unlawful non‑citizen onshore who had applied on 29 August 2024 for a Bridging E (Class WE) Subclass 050 (General) visa while arranging to depart Australia and unable to renew her Malaysian passport.
The question before the tribunal
The delegate refused the visa under s 73 of the Migration Act because the applicant was not satisfied that she met the requirements of cl 050.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.
What the tribunal established
Applicants who can show acceptable arrangements to depart Australia satisfy the criteria in cl 050.212 and cl 050.221 for a Subclass 050 bridging visa even if they are unlawful non‑citizens.
Track visa decisions as they land
Our pipeline reads new tribunal decisions from the official record every week and folds them into the numbers on these pages. Subscribers get the important rule and outcome shifts in plain English. Free, unsubscribe anytime.
Where do you actually stand?
Tribunal outcomes show how the rules are applied, but your own position depends on your visa, your points and your evidence.