Yit v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

In the case of Yit v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, the visa applicant, a Cambodian widow, applied for a Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa on 29 October 1996, having married the sponsor, an Australian citizen of Cambodian origin, the day before. The sponsor had been married twice before, with two children from his first marriage and one child from his second marriage. The sponsor sponsored two former partners for Australian residency. The sole issue before the court was whether the decision of the Tribunal was affected by actual bias.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal's decision that the marriage was not genuine and therefore did not meet the criteria for a Subclass 100 visa was affected by actual bias. The criteria for the visa were set out in Part 100 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, and required that the couple have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife and that their relationship be genuine and continuing. The Tribunal found that the sponsor had "no desire to live with the [visa applicant] if she cannot come to Australia and his commitment to her is a shallow one based on his wanting [her] to come to Australia to look after him." It concluded that the sponsor and the visa applicant did not have a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife or that their relationship was genuine and continuing.

The court found that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by actual bias. It was satisfied that the Tribunal had considered all relevant evidence and had not been influenced by any personal or prejudicial feelings towards the parties. The court noted that the Tribunal had given careful consideration to the evidence presented and had provided detailed reasons for its decision. It concluded that the Tribunal's decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence and that there was no actual bias on the part of the Tribunal.

The court dismissed the visa applicant's appeal and ordered that the visa applicant pay the respondent's costs. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld, and the visa applicant's application for a Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa was denied.