Sirimanne v Minister for Immigration

Sirimanne applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning her Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around allegations that the AAT had failed to administer a proper oath, conducted the hearing in an unlawful or unfair manner, and exhibited bias against Sirimanne.

The court was required to determine whether the AAT had erred in law by failing to administer a proper oath to Sirimanne, whether it was obliged to conduct a fresh hearing in accordance with regulation 1.23 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), and whether it had complied with regulation 1.23(10)(c). Further issues included whether the AAT had proceeded in a manner that was unfair and improper, or whether it was or appeared to be biased and prejudiced against Sirimanne. The court also considered whether the AAT should have accepted Sirimanne’s evidence of family violence as uncontradicted, reasonable, and probable.

Judge Mercuri found that the grounds of review were not made out. The court determined that the AAT had not failed to administer a proper oath, nor was it required to conduct a fresh hearing under regulation 1.23 in the manner alleged by Sirimanne. The AAT's conduct was found to be lawful and fair, and there was no evidence to support the claim of bias or prejudice. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.