Migration (Arrangements for Bridging visa applications) Instrument (LIN 21/045) 2021

The instrument relies on a small set of legal and administrative concepts and cross-references in the Migration Regulations 1994 and the Migration Act 1958. Key concepts are defined or used throughout the instrument and appear in the text and Schedule 1.

• Approved form (s 4). For the purposes of subregulation 2.07(5) of the Regulations, the instrument expressly identifies each form in Schedule 1 as an approved form for the listed class of Bridging visa (s 4(1)). The instrument also provides conditional additional approvals (for example, 482D/482V/494V for Bridging A and Bridging C at ss 4(2)-(3)) and express disapprovals for particular applicant categories (ss 4(6)-(7)).

• Modes of lodgement: paper form, Internet form, electronic form, ImmiAccount, online portal (s 3; Schedule 1). The instrument distinguishes between paper forms, Internet forms in ImmiAccount, and electronic forms in the Department’s online portal. The definitions in s 3 and the Schedule 1 matrix operationalise which mode is permitted for each Bridging class and which form numbers correspond to each mode.

• Place and manner rules (s 5). The instrument implements the Regulations’ requirement that an application be made at a particular place and in a particular manner by specifying two primary routes: (1) where the same form is used for a substantive visa application,at the same place and in the same manner as for the substantive visa (s 5(1)(a)); or (2) where the same form is not used,by Internet form in ImmiAccount or by electronic form in the online portal (s 5(1)(b)). The instrument also creates a limited exception that allows email lodgement of approved paper forms but only where the Department has provided a written notice authorising paper lodgement, the applicant is not in immigration clearance, the notice is attached, and lodgement occurs within seven calendar days (s 5(2)(a)-(d)).

• Immigration clearance and detention (Notes in s 3; s 5(2)(b); s 7(b)(i)). The instrument refers to the concept of immigration clearance (see Note 2 under s 3 which cites s 172(2) of the Act) and prescribes that some lodgements cannot be made in immigration clearance (for example, s 5(2)(b) and s 6(b)(i)). For Bridging E, specific procedures for applicants in immigration detention are set out (s 7(b)(i)).

• Class-specific procedural constraints (s 6 and s 7). The instrument establishes further constraints for particular classes. For example, paper form 1007 for Bridging D must not be submitted electronically and must be lodged in person at an interview with an officer (not in immigration clearance) or by post (s 6). Paper form 1008 for Bridging E must not be submitted electronically and must be lodged by hand to an officer if the applicant is in immigration detention, or in person at interview, or by post (s 7).

• Temporal limits: seven-calendar-day email window (s 5(2)(d)). If the Department authorises paper lodgement by email, the application must be submitted within seven calendar days after the written notice was sent, with the applicable time zone (AEST or AEDST) specified.

• Conditional exclusions tied to visa subclasses (s 4(6)-(7)). The instrument excludes certain forms (for example, form 1364/1364 (Internet), and form 866/866 (Internet) in certain contexts) where the applicant holds particular substantive visas (Subclass 785 or 790), thereby creating class-based restrictions on which forms can be used for those applicants.

These concepts interact with the Migration Regulations 1994 through the cross-references in the instrument. The Schedule 1 matrix is the practical mapping used by practitioners and applicants: for each Bridging visa class it lists the paper form(s), which of those are available as Internet forms in ImmiAccount, and which are available as electronic forms in the Department’s online portal.

This instrument affects several groups and decision points in the migration administration system. The text itself identifies the actors and the immediate effects on behaviour and choices.

• Visa applicants who seek a Bridging A (Class WA), Bridging B (Class WB), Bridging C (Class WC), Bridging D (Class WD), Bridging E (Class WE) or Bridging F (Class WF) visa. The instrument determines which form numbers they must use and the permitted lodgement channels (s 4, Schedule 1, s 5, s 6, s 7). For applicants holding particular substantive visas, the instrument narrows available forms (s 4(6)-(7)); for example, applicants holding Subclass 785 or 790 are prevented from using some 1364 or 866 forms for certain bridging classes.

• Migration agents, lawyers and other representatives. Agents advising applicants must follow the instrument’s approved-form and lodgement rules. Where a Bridging application uses the same form as a substantive visa, the agent must lodge at the same place and manner as the substantive visa instrument specifies (s 5(1)(a)). Where a lodged method is permitted only in person (for s 6 or parts of s 7), representatives will need to coordinate in-person interviews or postal lodgement.

• Department of Home Affairs officers. The instrument authorises the Department to control paper lodgement via issuance of a written notice for email lodgement (s 5(2)(a)). Officers are the recipients of in-person lodgements and interviews required by ss 6(b)(i) and 7(b)(ii). The Department also controls the online portal and ImmiAccount interfaces referred to in the instrument (s 3 definitions).

• Applicants in immigration detention and officers managing detention. The instrument prescribes that Bridging E (Class WE) applications using paper form 1008 for a person in immigration detention must be lodged by hand to an officer of Immigration (s 7(b)(i)). This imposes procedural requirements on detention officers and restricts methods available to detained applicants.

• Applicants located by immigration officers (unlawful non-citizens). The instrument’s Note 2 under s 5(1) directs attention to subregulations 2.10(2A) and (3) of the Regulations, which permit an unlawful non-citizen located by an officer to apply directly to that officer. That means officers making location/risk assessments must be prepared to receive Bridging applications under those regulatory provisions.

• Entities that maintain or supply the online systems. The instrument distinguishes three digital pathways: ImmiAccount, the Department’s online portal for electronic forms, and the Department’s back-end handling of emailed paper forms where authorisation has been granted (s 3 definitions; s 5). These operational platforms must support the permitted form numbers and integrate with the Department’s processing workflow.

In practical terms, who pays and who decides is straightforward: applicants bear the compliance cost of using the approved form and method; the Department decides which applicants may use a paper form by email through written authorisation (s 5(2)(a)). Applicants in certain categories (e.g. holders of Subclass 785 or 790) pay the cost of exclusion from particular online/paper options (s 4(6)-(7)). The instrument centralises the Department’s control of procedural access to Bridging visa applications by fixing approved forms and allowed channels.

The instrument sets out duties (procedural obligations) and prescribes certain rights in the sense of permitted methods. These are not substantive visa eligibility criteria, rather they are procedural constraints and permissions.

Duties and procedural obligations

• Use an approved form. The duty on applicants is to use an approved form for the class of Bridging visa as specified in Schedule 1 and by s 4(1). The instrument makes each form listed in Schedule 1 an approved form for the relevant class (s 4(1)). Conditional approvals and exclusions (s 4(2)-(7)) alter that duty depending on applicant status.

• Lodge at the correct place and in the correct manner. Where a Bridging application uses the same form as a substantive visa application, the applicant must lodge the Bridging application at the same place and in the same manner as the substantive visa instrument specifies (s 5(1)(a)). Where the same form is not used, the applicant must lodge using either an Internet form in ImmiAccount or an electronic form in the online portal (s 5(1)(b)).

• Follow the written-authorisation email process precisely when authorised. If the Department has given a written notice authorising email lodgement using an approved paper form, the applicant must (a) attach the written notice to the emailed application; (b) not be in immigration clearance; and (c) submit the application within seven calendar days from the date the notice was sent (s 5(2)(a)-(d)).

• Respect class-specific non-electronic restrictions. For Bridging D applications using paper form 1007, the applicant must not submit the form electronically (s 6(a)) and must lodge either in person at an interview with an officer (not in immigration clearance) or by post to an office of Immigration in Australia (s 6(b)(i)-(ii)). For Bridging E using paper form 1008, similar non-electronic restrictions apply with additional routes for applicants in immigration detention (s 7(a)-(b)).

Rights and permitted methods

• Right to lodge via ImmiAccount or online portal where the same form is not used. If an applicant cannot use the same form used for a substantive visa, the instrument permits lodgement by Internet form in ImmiAccount or an electronic form in the online portal (s 5(1)(b)).

• Right to paper lodgement where authorised. The instrument creates a limited right to lodge an approved paper form by email, but only where the Department provides written authorisation and the applicant complies with the conditions in s 5(2).

• Specific allowances for detained applicants. Bridging E applicants in immigration detention have a specified permitted method: by hand to an officer (s 7(b)(i)). This is a procedural right to be able to lodge an application in detention by direct handover.

• Conditional approval of substantive-visa forms for Bridging visas. The instrument permits some substantive-visa forms (for example, 482D/482V/494V) to constitute approved forms for Bridging A and Bridging C but only where the applicant has been authorised by the Department to apply for the substantive visa and the substantive application uses that approved form (s 4(2)-(3)).

Constraints on rights

• Class- and visa-based exclusions narrow available methods. For example, ss 4(6)-(7) exclude forms 1364/1364 Internet and 866/866 Internet for certain applicants holding Subclass 785 or 790 visas. Those exclusions limit the rights otherwise available to those applicants.

• Timeliness and technical conditions. The seven-calendar-day window for email lodgement and the requirement to attach the written notice are strict procedures that flow from s 5(2)(c)-(d) and impose a duty to observe precise time and documentary conditions.

The instrument, read together with the Migration Regulations 1994, converts procedural choices into mandatory obligations for applicants and fixed permissions for the Department. The instrument itself does not grant substantive visa entitlements; rather it prescribes the procedural route through which an applicant may exercise the right to apply for a Bridging visa.

The instrument does not create new criminal offences, financial penalties, or administrative sanctions within its text. Its enforcement is procedural: the instrument designates approved forms and permitted lodgement channels and therefore operates by making certain modes of lodgement compliant and implicitly rendering other modes non-compliant with the Migration Regulations’ place-and-manner requirements.

• No express penalties in the instrument. Nowhere in the instrument text are penalties, fines or criminal sanctions created. The instrument is an administrative instrument focused on process (s 1, s 4, s 5, s 6, s 7). It therefore does not itself declare that failure to comply will attract a specific penalty provision.

• Enforcement through acceptance/invalidity and administrative processing. The instrument repeatedly ties its provisions back to specific provisions of the Migration Regulations (for example, subregulation 2.07(5) in s 4 and paragraphs of Schedule 1 to the Regulations in s 5), and its Notes point practitioners to other operative provisions (for example, regulation 2.10C and subregulations 2.10(2A) and (3) of the Regulations). The immediate enforcement mechanism is functional: applications must be made using approved forms and at the required place and manner. If an application is not made in accordance with those rules, the Migration Regulations contain provisions that determine when a visa application is taken to have been made and whether an application is invalid or not accepted (the instrument refers to those Regulations in Notes, although the instrument does not reproduce or restate any invalidity consequences).

• Departmental discretion in paper-by-email authorisation. The Department authorises paper lodgement by email through "written notice" (s 5(2)(a)). That is an enforcement lever: the Department controls which applicants may deviate from the default online channels. The written notice is itself a procedural instrument of discretion, and the Department enforces the conditions: applicant not in immigration clearance (s 5(2)(b)), the written notice must be attached (s 5(2)(c)) and timeliness is enforced by the seven-calendar-day deadline (s 5(2)(d)). Non-observance of those conditions would mean the application does not meet the place-and-manner requirements set by the instrument.

• Officer reception and in-person requirements. For forms that must be lodged in person at an interview with an officer (for example s 6(b)(i) for Bridging D and s 7(b)(ii) for Bridging E), enforcement occurs at the point of receipt: an officer can accept or refuse to receive an application that is not made in the prescribed manner. The instrument also notes that unlawful non-citizens located by an officer may apply directly to that officer (Note under s 5), meaning enforcement and acceptance at that frontline level has legal basis in the Regulations.

• No new appeal rights, review procedures, or administrative penalty regimes added. The instrument does not itself create new merits review or judicial review rights nor does it modify existing review rights under the Act or Regulations. Any consequences from procedural non-compliance (for example, not using an approved form) will arise under the existing regulatory/administrative framework the instrument references rather than from the instrument itself.

In short, enforcement is exercised by the Department through acceptance practices, by requiring strict documentary and temporal compliance where exceptions are given, and by controlling the digital and in-person lodgement channels. The instrument provides the procedural rules; the Regulations and the Department’s operational practice determine the practical consequences of non-compliance.

The instrument sits inside the statutory framework created by the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 and is expressly made under the Regulations (title and s 1). It repeatedly cross-references and implements procedural provisions in those instruments.

• Relationship to the Migration Regulations 1994. The instrument is made under the Regulations and directly implements subregulation 2.07(5) by making forms in Schedule 1 "approved forms" for the relevant Bridging visa classes (s 4(1)). It explicitly refers to various paragraph numbers in Schedule 1 of the Regulations,such as paragraphs 1301(3)(a), 1302(3)(a), 1303(3)(a), 1304(3)(a), 1305(3)(a) and 1306(3)(a),in prescribing where and how applications must be made (s 5 and s 6). The instrument also notes Regulation 2.10C as providing for the time of making an Internet application (Notes under s 5(1) and s 5(3)) and points to subregulations 2.10(2A) and (3) concerning applications made by an unlawful non-citizen located by an officer (Note under s 5(1)). These references indicate that the instrument functions as a procedural adjunct to the Regulations, specifying approved forms and authorising particular modes of lodgement in order to operationalise the Regulations.

• Relationship to the Migration Act 1958. The instrument’s definitions refer to expressions defined in subsection 5(1) of the Act, including approved form, substantive visa and visa (Note 1 under s 3). The instrument also relies on the Act for the concept of "immigration clearance" by referring to subsection 172(2) of the Act in Note 2 under s 3. The effect is that the instrument’s procedural constraints operate within the Act’s substantive and procedural framework.

• Interaction with departmental systems law. The instrument references ImmiAccount and the Department’s online portal (s 3 definitions). Those systems are administrative platforms regulated by Departmental policy and operational rules. The instrument ties statutory approval to the existence of those digital systems, so changes to ImmiAccount or the online portal influence how applications may be made without further legislative amendment, so long as the form numbers and modes remain aligned.

• Interaction with the Legislation Act 2003. The amendment history in endnote 4 indicates that certain provisions were repealed or amended in ways that cross-refer to the Legislation Act 2003 (for example, s 2 rep. Legislation Act 2003, section 48D; s 7 rep. Legislation Act 2003, section 48C). Those references are about legislative housekeeping or structural changes and indicate that the instrument has been the subject of consequential amendments under the broader legislative architecture governed by the Legislation Act.

• Administrative discretion and overlapping operational rules. The instrument gives the Department a level of operational discretion: the Department issues written notices authorising paper-by-email lodgement (s 5(2)(a)) and controls the online portal and ImmiAccount. That discretion interacts with procedural rules in the Regulations (for example, timing rules in reg 2.10C), creating a layered compliance regime where applicants must satisfy both statutory requirements and Departmental procedural conditions.

• No alteration of substantive visa criteria. The instrument does not change visa eligibility or substantive statutory criteria; it deals only with the form of application and the place and manner of lodgement. Substantive criteria remain governed by the Act and Regulations; this instrument concerns how an applicant exercises the right to apply.

Overall, the instrument is a procedural instrument that must be read in conjunction with the Regulations and the Act. Its primary interaction is to operationalise the Regulations’ place-and-manner and approved-form requirements for Bridging visas by mapping form numbers to visa classes and specifying routes for lodgement.

The compilation includes an endnote record of amendments and provides an itemised amendment history for each affected section. The instrument was originally registered on 29 June 2021 (F2021L00899) and commenced on 1 July 2021 (endnote 3). Subsequent amendment instruments, their registration numbers and commencement dates are recorded in endnote 3 and specific section-level changes are recorded in endnote 4.

Chronology recorded in the compilation (endnote 3)

• Migration (Arrangements for Bridging visa applications) Instrument (LIN 21/045) 2021, registered 29 June 2021, F2021L00899, commenced 1 July 2021.

• Amendment Instrument (LIN 22/030) 2022, registered 29 July 2022, F2022L01029, commenced 1 August 2022.

• Amendment Instrument (LIN 23/019) 2023, registered 13 February 2023, F2023L00102, commenced 14 February 2023.

• Amendment Instrument (LIN 24/045) 2024, registered 30 July 2024, F2024L00938, commenced 31 July 2024.

Section-level changes recorded in endnote 4

• s 2 was repealed (rep. Legislation Act 2003, section 48D) , endnote 4 notes "s. 2 rep. Legislation Act 2003, section 48D". The compilation table records this as an editorial/structural change.

• s 3 was amended by F2022L01029 (endnote 4 entry for s 3: "am. F2022L01029").

• s 4 was amended by F2023L00102 and later by F2024L00938 (endnote 4 entries "am. F2023L00102" and "am. F2024L00938").

• s 5 was repealed and substituted (rs.) by F2022L01029 and later amended by F2024L00938 (endnote 4 shows "rs. F2022L01029" and "am. F2024L00938").

• s 6 shows in the amendment history as "rs. F2024L00938", indicating section 6 was repealed and substituted by the 2024 instrument (endnote 4).

• s 7 was repealed (rep. Legislation Act 2003, section 48C) and later had an addition in 2024 (endnote 4 records both "rep. Legislation Act 2003, section 48C" and "ad. 2024L00938").

• Schedule 1 has multiple amendment entries: amended by F2022L01029, repealed and substituted by F2023L00102, and amended by F2024L00938. The endnote records these sequentially.

What the history indicates in practice

• The instrument has been actively managed and updated since its first commencement in July 2021. The compilation shows the Department has refined approved-form lists and procedural rules through a sequence of amendment instruments in 2022, 2023, and 2024. The endnote table in the compilation identifies which specific sections were subject to amendment, repeal or substitution and which amendment instrument effected that change (endnote 4).

• Legislative housekeeping linked to the Legislation Act 2003 accounts for structural repeals and insertions (for example, repeals citing sections 48C and 48D of the Legislation Act), indicating the amendments were not only policy-driven but also administrative and structural.

• Schedule 1, which contains the operational matrix linking Bridging visa classes, paper forms, Internet forms and electronic forms, has been amended repeatedly. That schedule is the primary operational instrument for day-to-day processing and is therefore a natural target for frequent updates.

For practitioners, the amendment history in the endnotes is a signal to confirm the current in-force version (the compilation date here is 31 July 2024) and to pay attention to which form numbers and lodgement modes have changed over time. The endnotes provide the registration numbers and commencement dates required to reconcile past practice with current obligations.

The instrument’s text and compilation do not include or record any litigation decisions, court judgments, tribunal determinations or administrative appeals that interpret or contest its provisions. The compilation’s endnotes provide legislative history and amendment records (endnotes 3 and 4) but no case law entries appear in the document.

What the absence of recorded litigation in the compilation means in practice

• No cases named in the instrument. The instrument does not cite any judicial decisions or administrative review decisions. It is a procedural instrument that implements Regulations; contested issues about forms or modes of lodgement would typically arise as part of broader migration litigation, but the instrument does not record any such matters.

• Practical implications for practitioners. Because the instrument establishes procedural mechanics,approved forms, place and manner,disputes arising from its application would likely surface as administrative law challenges (for example, where an application was rejected as invalid because of the mode of lodgement). However the compilation provides no internal record of such disputes. Practitioners should therefore search court and tribunal databases and the full Migration Regulations/Act text for any interpretative authorities, as nothing is supplied in the instrument.

• No statutory appeal or review commentary in the instrument. The instrument does not add or modify merit review or judicial review rights. Any litigation history concerning applications that were processed (or rejected) under this instrument will be found, if it exists, outside the instrument itself in judicial or tribunal records. The compilation does not summarise or annotate any litigation.

• Operational risk remains. The absence of litigation in the instrument does not mean there is no litigation risk. Given the instrument’s repeated amendment history and the operational discretions it confers on the Department (for example, the written-notice authorisation in s 5(2)), questions can arise in practice about whether the Department correctly applied the place-and-manner rules or improperly refused to accept a lodgement. Those would be matters for tribunal or court challenge, none of which are recorded in the instrument.

In short, the compilation contains no litigation history entries; it is silent on judicial or tribunal treatment of its provisions. Practitioners should not infer from that silence that the instrument is immune from challenge; it simply contains no recorded cases or references to litigation.

The instrument contains a number of specific procedural traps and tight conditions that create real compliance risk if overlooked. This section summarises those concrete pitfalls, with references to the governing provisions.

• Written-authority email window is short and strictly conditional (s 5(2)(a)-(d)). Where the Department issues a written notice authorising email lodgement of an approved paper form, the applicant must (a) not be in immigration clearance (s 5(2)(b)), (b) attach the written notice to the emailed application (s 5(2)(c)), and (c) lodge within seven calendar days after the notice was sent, using AEST or AEDST as applicable (s 5(2)(d)). Missing any one of these conditions risks a lodgement that does not satisfy the instrument’s place-and-manner requirements. The seven-day deadline is short and tied to the Department’s sending time, so proof of the Department’s email date and timely submission by the applicant are critical.

• Paper forms 1007 and 1008 cannot be lodged electronically (s 6(a); s 7(a)). For Bridging D, paper form 1007 "must not be made by any electronic means, including by fax or email" (s 6(a)). For Bridging E, the same prohibition applies to paper form 1008 (s 7(a)). Attempting to email or fax these specific paper forms without the required written authorisation or when the instrument prohibits electronic lodgement risks the application not being treated as properly made.

• In-person interview requirement for some paper forms (s 6(b)(i) and s 7(b)(ii)). Bridging D paper form 1007 must be made in person at an interview with an officer of Immigration (not in immigration clearance) or by post (s 6(b)(i)-(ii)). Bridging E using paper form 1008 may also require in-person attendance except where the applicant is in immigration detention or is lodging by post (s 7(b)(i)-(iii)). If an applicant is geographically remote or cannot attend, those routes can be problematic; the instrument does not provide for ad hoc remote lodgement for those paper forms.

• Detention-lodgement specifics (s 7(b)(i)). For a Bridging E application using paper form 1008, an applicant in immigration detention must lodge "by hand to an officer of Immigration" (s 7(b)(i)). That procedure places the onus on detention centre operations and the detained applicant to secure an officer reception; other modes (Internet or electronic) may not be available or suitable in detention.

• Conditional approvals tied to Departmental authorisation for substantive visas (s 4(2)-(3)). Forms 482D, 482V, 494V are approved forms for Bridging A and Bridging C only if two conditions are satisfied: (a) the applicant has been authorised by the Department to apply for the substantive visa; and (b) the application for the substantive visa is made using the approved form 482D, 482V, or 494V (ss 4(2)-(3)). Practitioners must verify Departmental authorisation status and ensure the substantive visa application uses the exact form referenced. A mismatch could mean the bridging application is not on an approved form.

• Exclusions for holders of Subclass 785 or 790 (s 4(6)-(7)). For Bridging A, Bridging C and Bridging E, form 1364 and form 1364 (Internet) are expressly not approved forms if the applicant holds a Subclass 785 (Temporary Protection) visa or Subclass 790 (Safe Haven Enterprise) visa (s 4(6)). For Bridging E, form 866 and form 866 (Internet) are not approved forms for applicants holding those subclasses (s 4(7)). These exclusions are specific and could be overlooked if practitioners assume generic availability of form numbers.

• The "same form as substantive visa" rule has operational consequences (s 5(1)(a)). If the Bridging application uses the same form as a substantive visa, the bridging application must be made at the same place and in the same manner as the substantive application instrument under subregulation 2.07(5) of the Regulations. That requires checking not only the form number but also the instrument (under subregulation 2.07(5)) that sets the place and manner for that substantive visa. Failure to align with that instrument will create a place-and-manner mismatch.

• Time of making Internet applications governed elsewhere (Notes under s 5). The instrument points users to regulation 2.10C of the Regulations for the time of making an Internet application (Notes under s 5(1) and s 5(3)). That means that when relying on Internet lodgement, practitioners must consult the Regulations for the exact time rules; the instrument does not itself set those timing rules.

• Different treatment of "Internet" versus "electronic" forms and different portals (s 3; Schedule 1). The instrument distinguishes between Internet forms in ImmiAccount and electronic forms in the online portal. Schedule 1 shows not all forms are available in all portals. Practitioners and applicants that confuse these portals or assume universal availability risk submitting in an unsupported channel.

• Attachment of written notice required on email lodgement (s 5(2)(c)). The instrument requires the written notice to be attached when the applicant submits the paper form by email under the Department’s authorisation. Failure to attach the notice is a discrete non-compliance event.

These "gotchas" are procedural; they do not alter substantive visa law, but they are high-friction points where applications can be administratively invalidated or rejected for failing to satisfy the instrument’s precise procedural rules. Practitioners must treat the instrument as prescriptive and follow the listed form numbers, modes and timing conditions carefully.

This section provides a practical compliance checklist derived from the instrument’s text and Schedule 1. It is written for practitioners (lawyers, migration agents, accountants advising clients, and compliance officers) and is grounded in the instrument’s prescriptive mechanics.

1. Identify the Bridging visa class and the specific form numbers allowed

   • Consult Schedule 1 and s 4(1) to identify which paper, Internet and electronic forms are approved for the relevant Bridging visa class. Schedule 1 is the operative matrix listing paper forms, Internet forms in ImmiAccount, and electronic forms in the online portal for Bridging classes WA, WB, WC, WD, WE, WF.

2. Check conditional approvals and exclusions

   • For Bridging A and Bridging C, if you intend to use form 482D, 482V or 494V, confirm two preconditions under ss 4(2)-(3): (a) the applicant has been authorised by the Department to apply for the substantive visa; and (b) the substantive visa application is being made using the same approved form (482D/482V/494V).
   • For applicants holding Subclass 785 or 790 visas, note exclusions in s 4(6)-(7) which make forms 1364 and 866 unavailable in certain Bridging contexts. Choose an alternate approved form where the instrument excludes a form for that applicant.

3. Determine place and manner under s 5

   • If the Bridging application uses the same form as a substantive visa application, lodge at the same place and in the same manner as specified in the instrument under subregulation 2.07(5) for the substantive visa (s 5(1)(a)).
   • If not, lodge using an Internet form in ImmiAccount as an Internet application, or using an electronic form in the Department’s online portal (s 5(1)(b)).
   • Remember regulation 2.10C of the Regulations governs the time of making an Internet application; consult that regulation for time-stamping and timing concerns.

4. Use the written-authority email channel only when expressly authorised

   • If the applicant cannot lodge via the above routes and the Department issues a written notice authorising lodgement by email using an approved paper form, verify the written notice and follow these strict conditions:
     • The applicant must not be in immigration clearance (s 5(2)(b)).
     • Attach the written notice to the emailed application (s 5(2)(c)).
     • Submit the email to bv.abc.lodgement@homeaffairs.gov.au within seven calendar days after the written notice was sent, using the appropriate time zone (AEST or AEDST) (s 5(2)(d)).
   • Keep robust evidence of the Department’s written notice and timestamps for your email transmission.

5. Observe the non-electronic-only rules for specific paper forms

   • For Bridging D (Class WD) using paper form 1007: do not submit the form electronically, including via email or fax (s 6(a)). Lodgement must be by in-person interview with an officer (not in immigration clearance) or by post to an Australian office of Immigration (s 6(b)).
   • For Bridging E (Class WE) using paper form 1008: do not submit the form electronically (s 7(a)). Acceptable methods are hand to an officer if the applicant is in immigration detention (s 7(b)(i)), in-person interview with an officer (s 7(b)(ii)), or by post to an office of Immigration (s 7(b)(iii)). Note that (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) apply to any applicant, including those in immigration detention (s 7 note).

6. For applicants in immigration detention or located by officers, follow the special rules

   • If the applicant is in immigration detention, for Bridging E using paper form 1008 lodge by hand to an officer (s 7(b)(i)). Coordinate with detention centre staff to ensure receipt is recorded.
   • If an unlawful non-citizen is located by an officer, consider the alternative route referenced in s 5 Note 2 that points to subregulations 2.10(2A) and (3) of the Regulations which allow direct application to the officer.

7. Recordkeeping and evidence

   • Retain copies of the exact form used, any Departmental written authorisation, proof of transmission or handover (signed receipts for in-person lodgement), and time-stamped screenshots or system-generated confirmation for ImmiAccount or online portal lodgement.
   • For email lodgement under written authorisation, save the Department’s original written notice, the email sent to bv.abc.lodgement@homeaffairs.gov.au with the attached form, and the email’s sent timestamp to prove compliance with the seven-calendar-day rule (s 5(2)(d)).

8. Verify system compatibility and availability

   • Confirm whether the form you need is available as an Internet form in ImmiAccount or as an electronic form in the online portal by checking the live Schedule 1 list and the Department’s portal. The instrument distinguishes between ImmiAccount and the online portal and not all forms are available in both places (s 3; Schedule 1). Misrouting into the wrong portal can create a place-and-manner non-compliance.

9. Coordinate with substantive visa applications

   • Where the same form is used for both the substantive visa and the Bridging visa, ensure you know the place-and-manner instrument made under subregulation 2.07(5) that governs the substantive visa, because that determines where and how the Bridging application must be lodged (s 5(1)(a)).

10. Keep an eye on amendment history and current compilation

    • The instrument has been amended several times (endnotes 3 and 4). Practitioners must check the current in-force compilation (this compilation is dated 31 July 2024) and the Register for any uncommenced amendments or later changes. Rely on the in-force text and the Department’s operational guidance where available.

Following this checklist keeps the applicant aligned with the instrument’s prescriptive mechanics. It does not remove the need to satisfy substantive visa requirements in the Act and Regulations; it addresses only the procedural dimension of how a Bridging visa application is made and accepted.