13. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant's Bridging visa A was granted to him after 19 November 2016 (17 December 2018) and thus the Applicant was on notice that his Bridging A visa would cease 35 days after the Tribunal decision was made.
14. The AAT decision was made on 22 July 2022. 35 days after the Applicant was notified of the AAT decision, meaning that his Bridging visa A would cease on 29 August 2022.
15. In a submission to this Tribunal dated 12 September 2025 Mr Turner notes that:

"on 30 August 2022, at his first opportunity, Mr. Geagea made an application for Bridging E with Form 1008 (Internet) on the grounds of his ultimately successful Part 5 appeal under s 351 of the Act".

16. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that on 27 July 2022 the Applicant through his legal representative Mr Turner, made an application to the Minister seeking that the Minister consider exercising his Ministerial powers under s 351 of the Act to grant the Applicant a visa.
17. On 8 November 2022, the Applicant was granted a Former Resident (subclass 151) permanent resident visa by the Minister.
18. The Applicant applied for Australian citizenship on 18 January 2024.

1. As discussed, the Applicants Bridging A visa ceased on 29 August 2022.
2. The Applicant applied for a Bridging E visa on 30 August 2022.
3. The Tribunal has considered the eligibility criteria for a Bridging E visa as specified in the Migration Regulations. A primary eligibility requirement for the grant of a Bridging E visa is that the Applicant for the visa is "an unlawful non-citizen", the holder of a Bridging E visa, or the holder of a Bridging visa D (BVD).
4. The Migration Regulations with respect to the grant of a Bridging E visa specifically note that:

050.2--Primary criteria > > Note: All Applicants must satisfy the primary criteria. > > 050.21--Criteria to be satisfied at time of application > > 050.211 > > (1) The Applicant is: > > (a) an unlawful non - citizen; or > > (b) the holder of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa; or > > (c) the holder of a Subclass 041 (Bridging (Non - Applicant)) visa. > > (2) The Applicant is not an eligible non - citizen of the kind set out in subregulation 2.20(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (17), (18) or (19). > > 050.212 > > (1) The Applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2), (3), (3A), (4), (4AAA), (4AA), (4AB), (5), (5A), (5B), (6), (6AA), (6A), (7), (8) or (9). > > (2) An Applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the Minister is satisfied that the Applicant is making, or is the subject of, acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. > > (3) An Applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if: > > (a) the Applicant has made, in Australia, a valid application for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the Applicant is in Australia and that application has not been finally determined; or > > (b) the Minister is satisfied that the Applicant will apply, in Australia, within a period allowed by the Minister for the purpose, for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the Applicant is in Australia. > > (3A) An Applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if: > > (a) the Applicant has made, in Australia, a valid application for a substantive visa of a kind that can be granted if the Applicant is in Australia; and > > (b) either: > > (i) the Applicant has applied for judicial review of a decision to refuse to grant the visa and the judicial proceedings (including any proceedings on appeal) have not been completed; or > > (ii) the Minister has applied for judicial review of a decision in relation to a refusal to grant the Applicant's substantive visa, and the judicial review proceedings (including any proceedings on appeal) have not been completed. > > (4) An Applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if: > > (a) the Applicant has applied for judicial review of a decision in relation to a substantive visa, other than a decision to refuse to grant a visa; or > > (aa) the Minister has applied for judicial review of a decision in relation to the Applicant's substantive visa application, other than a decision relating to a refusal to grant the substantive visa; or > > (b) the Applicant has applied for merits review of a decision to cancel a visa; or > > (ba) the Applicant has applied under section 137K of the Act for revocation of the cancellation of a visa; or > > (bb) the Applicant has applied for merits review of a decision under section 137L of the Act not to revoke the cancellation of a visa; or > > (c) the Minister is satisfied that the Applicant will make an application of a kind referred to in paragraph (b), (ba) or (bb); or > > (d) the Applicant has applied for judicial review of the validity of a law that affects: > > (i) the Applicant's eligibility to apply for a substantive visa; or > > (ii) the Applicant's entitlement to be granted or to continue to hold a substantive visa. > > (4AAA) An Applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if the Applicant has applied for: > > (a) a declaration from a court that the Act does not apply to the Applicant; or > > (b) judicial review or merits review of a decision made in relation to the Applicant under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 ; > > and the proceedings for the declaration or review have not been completed.

5. The Applicants representative has argued that Departmental systems and the application requirements for a Bridging E visa precluded the Applicant from making the application until the expiration of his Bridging A visa on 29 August 2022. This inevitably led him into a period of unlawfulness (for one day) until the Bridging E visa had been granted.
6. The Applicant applied for the Bridging E visa at the first opportunity he had to do so, 30 August 2022. Once again, the Applicant claimed that his ability to do so was incumbent on his Bridging A visa expiring.
7. On 31 August 2022, the Applicant was granted a Bridging E visa. The evidence indicates that for the period 30 August 2022 (one day) the Applicant was an unlawful non-citizen. The evidence indicates that the one day as an unlawful non-citizen fell within the four years immediately prior to the lodgement of the Applicant's citizenship application made on 18 January 2024.
8. At review the Applicant's representative provided a statement of facts, issues and contentions which is undated, and a supplementary submission dated 12 September 2025. Both submissions have been duly considered.
9. The Applicants representative has contended in the undated SFIC that the Applicant was eligible for a WE-050 visa on 27 July 2022 and that the Minister erred in failing to grant him the WE-050 visa from this date to 31 August 2022 (see paragraphs 17-19 of the Applicant's SFIC).
10. The Applicant's representative contends that the Minister, through administrative error, failed to carry out his legislative duty to grant the Applicant his Bridging E visa until 31 August 2022.
11. The Applicant's representative further argues that the only reason the Applicant was an unlawful non-citizen for the one day on 30 August 2022 was that the Applicant could not lodge an Application for a Bridging E visa by any means until such time as his Bridging A visa had expired. The Applicant's representative argues that this constitutes administrative error.
12. The Applicant's representative argues that lodgement through the Departments online lodgement system and indeed any attempt at an in-person lodgement for a Bridging E visa would not be accepted and processed until such time that the Applicants Bridging A visa had expired on 29 August 2022.
13. The Applicant's representative pointed out (with a copy of a screenshot) that any attempt to lodge the Bridging E application before the expiration of the Bridging A visa on 29 August 2022 would be met with an error message in the IMMI system that would state that "based on the information provided (the visa Applicant) is not eligible to be granted a Bridging Visa E. The Applicant will not be able to continue with this application and should review our website for further information."
14. The Applicant's representative noted that:

"On 29 August 2022, Mr Geagea was the holder of Bridging A and so was a lawful non-citizen with an active Part 5 appeal. An onus on Mr Geagea to ensure he had an effective visa in place at all times must be met by the genuine opportunity to do so. The failure to provide Mr Geagea with the possibility of maintaining his continued lawful residency is an administrative error with significant consequences to Mr Geagea. > > ... Schedule 2 of the Regulations at 050.21 prescribes the Criteria to be satisfied at time of application of a Bridging E visa- > > 050.211 > > (1) The Applicant is: > > (a) an unlawful non - citizen; or > > (b) the holder of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa; or > > (c) the holder of a Subclass 041 (Bridging (Non - Applicant)) visa. > > (2) The Applicant is not an eligible non - citizen of the kind set out in subregulation 2.20(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (17), (18) or (19). > > On and before 29 August 2022, Mr Geagea was not an unlawful non-citizen, the holder of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, or the holder of a Subclass 041(Bridging (Non-Applicant)) visa. > > On 30 August 2022, at his first opportunity, Mr Geagea made an application for a Bridging E with Form 1008 (Internet) on the grounds of his ultimately successful Part 5 appeal under Section 351 of the Act. > > On 31 August 2022, Mr Geagea was granted the Bridging E having become an unlawful non-citizen as he was given no opportunity to maintain his lawful status because of the limitations set by the technology IMMI Account and Form 1008 (Internet)".

"At all times in the last four years of residency, being from 18 January 2020 to 18 January 2024, Mr Geagea has always made appropriate applications at the appropriate times. > > Mr Geagea was a lawful non-citizen on 29 August 2022 until midnight when his BVA ceased. The following day, the day his eligibility arose for a BVE, Mr Geagea made his application for BVE. The administrative error is that the failure to act by the Department officers directly caused Mr Geagea to become unlawful. > > Accordingly, Mr Geagea makes this application for Australian Citizenship by conferral under Ministerial Discretion-administrative error, on the error. The error is the failure to process and grant Mr Geagea's BVE on time. This error of failing to grant the visa to Mr Geagea in a timely manner is the direct cause of the day of unlawfulness on 30 August 2022. > > Mr Geagea is a man of good character, a hard worker, and a good friend and should not be delayed from the grant of citizenship because of the error not to grant his BVE on time. Mr Geagea already feels he is Australian and identifies as an Australia (sic). Mr Geagea is ingrained in his Australian community as a valued worker and friend and as such the discretion should be exercised in his favour".

16. The Tribunal notes that the respondent's representative conceded at hearing that the Applicant was precluded from making an application for a Bridging E visa until the expiration of his Bridging A visa on 29 August 2022, and that it would make no difference whether the application was made online using an IMMI account or over the counter in a Departmental office. The Minister argues that Departmental systems reflect the regulatory provisions that govern the eligibility for the grant of a Bridging E visa, hence the application process is designed in such a way that you cannot apply for a Bridging E visa in anticipation of becoming unlawful, you must indeed be in that status.
17. The Respondent provided a statement of facts issues and contentions which is dated 1 September 2025 and has been duly considered by the Tribunal. The Respondent contends that the Applicant does not satisfy subsection 21(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act and consequently does not satisfy subsection 21(2) of the Act to be approved for Australian citizenship by conferral. Further that the legislative exemptions under subsections 22(2), 22(4A) and 22(5)-(11) of the Act do not apply to the Applicant.
18. The Respondent submits that because of the unlawful period, the Applicant was present in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen for one day (at least 30 August 2022) during the four years immediately prior to lodging his citizenship application and cannot satisfy paragraph 22(1)(b) of the Act. Because the requirements in subsection 22(1) are cumulative, the Applicant cannot satisfy the general residence requirement.
19. The Respondent contends that the Applicant does not satisfy subsection 22(1)(b) of the Act. Subsection 22(1)(b) requires that the Applicant must not be present in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen at any time during the four-year period immediately before making an application for citizenship. The four-year period in the Applicant's case is between 18 January 2020 on 17 January 2024. For this period the Respondent contends that Departmental records show that the Applicant was an unlawful non-citizen at least on 30 August 2022 as his WA-010 visa ceased on 29 August 2022 and his WE-050 visa was granted on 31 August 2022 this is within the four years immediately prior to the Applicant's citizenship application. The Respondent therefore contends that the Applicant does not satisfy the requirements of subsection 22(1)(b) of the Act.
20. The Ministers representative noted that:

"In relation to the Applicant's contention in his SFIC that he was eligible for a WE-050 visa on 27 July 2022 and that the Minister erred in failing to grant him a WE-050 visa from this day to 31 August 2022, the Minister again contends that the Applicant only applied for a WE-050 visa on 30 August 2022 and that if the Applicant believed that he was eligible for a WE-050 visa on 27 July 2022 and wished to be granted a WE-050 visa on 27 July 2022, then he should have lodged an application for a WE-050 visa on or before 27 July 2022, as was available to him. > > ...moreover, in relation to the Applicant's contention that he met all the criteria for a WE-050 visa on 27 July 2022, the Minister notes that on 27 July 2022, the Applicant was on a WA-010 visa, which was granted on 17 December 2018 (and which ceased on 29 August 2022. The Minister therefore contends that on 27 July 2022, the Applicant did not meet clause 050.211(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Migration Regulations), which provides primary criteria for a grant of a WE-050 visa".

21. The submission noted that the primary criteria for the grant of a WE-050 visa requires that at time of application the Applicant is an unlawful noncitizen, the holder of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa or the holder of a Subclass 041 (Bridging (Non-Applicant)) visa.
22. The submission notes that:

"the Applicant therefore did not meet clause 050.211(1) of the Migration Regulations on 27 July 2022, as he was not an unlawful non-citizen (he was on a WA-010 visa at the time) and was not a holder of a Bridging E (Class WE) visa or a Subclass 041 (Bridging (Non-Applicant)) visa. The Minister therefore contends that even if the Applicant did make an application for a WE-050 visa on 27 July 2022, he was ineligible on this date, and would remain in eligible until after 29 August 2022, which is when he is WA-010 visa ceased".

23. The Tribunal conducted a review hearing on 19 November 2025. Ms Liu appeared for the Minister and Mr Turner appeared for the Applicant. The parties addressed their respective statements of facts issues and contentions and made submissions to the Tribunal with respect to whether or not the Applicant satisfies the requirements of subsection 22(1)(b).

1. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant, whilst lawful in Australia made an application for a Subclass 457 Long Stay Business visa on 23 January 2018. On 17 December 2018, the Applicant was issued with a Bridging A visa pending the outcome of his 457-visa application.
2. On 8 January 2019, the Applicant's Subclass 457 visa application was refused by the Department. The Applicant sought merits review with that then AAT.
3. On 22 July 2022, the AAT affirmed the primary decision. The Applicant was notified of the AAT decision in a letter that was sent to both the Applicant and to his legal representative Mr Turner on 25 July 2022.
4. As discussed, annexed to the notification of decision letter was an AAT 'Facts Sheet' titled 'Information About Decisions'.
5. As discussed the 'Facts Sheet' indicates that if the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, deciding that the delegates decision should not be changed, or deciding that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review a decision, that the review Applicant's bridging visa would cease 35 days after the AAT decision was made if their bridging visa was granted on or after 19 November 2016. Further to this that the Applicant "should apply for another Bridging visa before your current visa ceases".
6. Having regard to this time-period, the Applicant's Bridging A visa would cease on 29 August 2022.
7. The evidence before the Tribunal shows that the AAT Facts Sheet indicated that if an Applicant receives an unfavourable decision from the Tribunal at merits review that Applicants could apply to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for judicial review of the decision and advised that the Applicant must do so within 35 days of the date of the decision.
8. It is clear in this case that the Applicant who was legally represented by a migration lawyer determined that there were no grounds to seek judicial review of the AAT decision based on error of law. However, the evidence indicates that the Applicant instructed his legal representative to lodge an application to the Minister seeking the exercise of Ministerial discretion under section 351 of the Migration Act. The evidence indicates that this request was made by the Applicant to the Minister on 29 July 2022.
9. The evidence provided to the Tribunal at review is that the only relevant onshore option available to the Applicant to maintain his lawful status was to wait until the expiration of his Bridging A visa on 29 August 2022, at which time he would be able to make an application for a Bridging E visa to the Department.
10. The evidence that has been provided to the Tribunal at review and indeed conceded to by the Minister's representative indicates that the Applicant was precluded from making an application for a Bridging E visa until the expiration of his Bridging A visa. This is due to the operation of the regulatory regime that governs the eligibility requirements for a Bridging E visa. The Departmental system that has been designed for BVE lodgements reflects this regulatory regime, which stipulates the eligibility requirements for the grant of a Bridging E visa.
11. Discussion ensued at the review hearing about other options that may have been available to the Applicant at the time to maintain his lawful status in Australia. The Minister's representative noted that the Applicant could have elected to depart Australia and lodge an application offshore. The Applicant's representative correctly noted that given that the Applicant had a request under section 351 of the Migration Act to the Minister to exercise his public interest powers in favour of the Applicant, that if he left the jurisdiction, that the Ministerial request would come to an end and would not be considered.
12. Discussion ensued about other types of applications that the Applicant may have been able to lodge onshore to maintain his lawful status given that he was subject to a Section 48 bar, on the basis that his 457-visa application had been refused. Section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is a provision that prevents non-citizens in Australia from applying for most other visas if they do not hold a substantive visa and have had a visa refused or cancelled since their last entry into Australia.
13. It was conceded that there were only 3 visa options that were available to the Applicant. One was the lodgement of a partner visa, the second a medical treatment visa, and the third a protection visa. The Applicant's representative noted that there was no basis for the lodgement of a partner application, the Applicant did not meet the conditions for the grant of a medical treatment visa, or meet the requirements for the lodgement of a protection visa application.
14. In the absence of grounds to pursue judicial review of the AAT decision the only option available to the Applicant after the refusal by the AAT of his 457-visa application decision was to make a request for Ministerial Intervention under section 351 of the Migration Act which is what he did on 29 July 2022.
15. Because of the operation of the Migration Regulations which govern the eligibility requirements for the grant of a Bridging E visa the Applicant was not able to apply for a further Bridging visa E until his Bridging A visa expired on 29 August 2022, making him an unlawful non-citizen, and triggering his eligibility to meet regulation 050.211 of the Migration Regulations, the relevant time of application criteria.
16. The Applicant's representative argued that the information contained in the AAT Facts Sheet noted that "the Minister has powers under the Migration Act 1958 to substitute a decision with a decision more favourable to the Applicant". However, the AAT Facts Sheet was silent with respect to maintaining lawful status in Australia whilst undertaking a request to the Minister after unsuccessful merits review. It only noted that "if you seek judicial review or our affirmed or no jurisdiction decision, you may be eligible for a bridging visa that will keep you lawful throughout this process".
17. An omission in the AAT Fact Sheet does not, in the Tribunal's view come within the ambit of a Departmental administrative error.
18. The Applicant was legally represented by an experienced migration lawyer who would have been well aware of the range options available to the Applicant to maintain his lawful status whilst awaiting the outcome of his Ministerial intervention request.
19. Evidence that has been provided to the Tribunal at review clearly indicates that the Applicant was precluded from making an application for a Bridging E visa to the Department until such time as his Bridging A visa had expired, leading him into an inevitable period of being an unlawful non-citizen, in the Applicant's case a period of one day, 30 August 2022. The Applicant was precluded from making such an application to the Department physically at a Departmental office or through the online lodgement system until the Bridging A visa had ceased. The reason for this is that the Departmental systems reflected the regulatory requirements relevant to the grant of a Bridging E visa.
20. This was due to the operation of the regulatory regime that governs the eligibility requirements for the grant of a Subclass WE-050 visa and is not as a result of administrative error by the Department. The Department was merely giving effect to the legislative regime that governs the eligibility requirements for the grant of a Bridging E visa (WE-050).
21. It is clear that this has had adverse consequences for the Applicant with respect to the citizenship by conferral application that is currently the subject of review by this Tribunal. It means that he will have to reapply for citizenship by conferral and cover the costs of lodging a future application.
22. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's inability to apply for a Bridging E visa until after his Bridging visa A had expired on 29 August 2022 does not constitute an 'administrative error' of the kind envisaged by Section 22(4A) of the Citizenship Act.
23. The ability of the Applicant to meet the legislative requirements for the grant of a Subclass WE-050 visa required the Applicant to be unlawful, or the holder of a Bridging E visa or the holder of a Subclass 041 (Bridging (Non-Applicant)) visa. The only applicable eligibility requirement able to be met by the Applicant to facilitate the grant of a WE-050 visa was him being unlawful and this did not occur until the expiration of his Bridging A visa on 29 August 2022.
24. The Departmental application process for a Bridging E visa is designed in such a way that an Applicant cannot apply for a Subclass WE-050 visa in anticipation of becoming unlawful. An Applicant must already be in 'unlawful status' before an application can be made.
25. The Tribunal is unable to find that the Applicants 24-hour period of being unlawful was the direct result of administrative error by the Department of Home Affairs or their systems design and application timing requirements as asserted by the Applicant. It was through the operation of the regulatory provisions that govern the grant of a Bridging E visa, and as noted the Departmental systems have been designed to reflect the regulatory regime which stipulates the eligibility requirements for the grant of a Bridging E visa.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] See Re Drake and Minister for Immigration, and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645 per Brennan J, which was cited with approval in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 33 ALD 13, 30 per French and Drummond JJ.