Federal Circuit and Family Court. In reviewing a refusal to grant a student visa to an Indian national who sought to study cookery in Australia, the AAT said at the hearing: "I know that 99% of the cooks in India don’t come here and study". Was the AAT's decision affected by apprehended bias?
The question to the AAT was whether an Indian national seeking to study cookery was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.
At [64], the Court quoted from the AAT transcript, where the AAT said before hearing any of the evidence on the relevant criterion: "... I am highly likely to affirm this today...".
At [69], the Court quoted from another passage, where the AAT said: “… I know that 99% of the cooks in India don’t come here and study ...”.
At [66], the Court quoted from a passage between the AAT and the applicant's representative:
Member: (to the Representative) You’re digging a hole. I’ll tell you why you’re digging a hole. Because if I had a GTE statement here, this is not, your Submission is not a GTE Statement from the Applicant. Okay? Let’s pretend it is. I would say to the Applicant, is this your GTE Statement? Yes. Did you write it? And if he said he wrote it, I’d probably go into some of it, what he wrote to make sure he did write it. He said, “No I didn’t write it, my representative wrote it”. How much weight you think I’d put on it? If an Applicant can’t write their own GTE statement? I think...
Representative: Basically Sir, what I’ve tried to do by this Submission is to bring to the Tribunal all the information that I have discussed over the meetings with him.
Member: Not his GTE statement. It’s your Submission. It’s a big difference. You can’t give me evidence, you can give me arguments. He gives me evidence. If you’re doing this for other clients, you’ve got a problem in your practice. I’m gonna ask you some questions through the requirements I need to consider in regard to Ministerial Direction 108. I’m going to give you two weeks to write to me and explain why I shouldn’t refer you to OMARA. Okay. Today’s the 8th. Twenty-second of May, I want something from you explaining to me why you shouldn’t be referred for malpractice. It’s appalling conduct...
At [71], the Court quoted from a further passage, where the AAT said: "You have someone who’s been coaching him on a pathway. So, I don’t think he’s got a genuine interest in cooking. I know how it works Mr [representative], you know that. I do nine of these a week, predominantly in exactly the same situation. I can see through it."
The Court answered the above question as follows: