An asylum seeker has failed to convince the full Federal Court that a judge who rejected an extraordinary number of migration appeals was biased.

Key points: The judicial review challenged a bias application refused by Judge Alexander Street last year

The judicial review challenged a bias application refused by Judge Alexander Street last year Of 254 cases, Judge Street ruled 252 in favour of the Immigration Minister

Of 254 cases, Judge Street ruled 252 in favour of the Immigration Minister Full court found rulings would not lead people to think judge was biased

The Lebanese man, who claims his strict Sunni Muslim father will send him to fight in Syria if he is returned home, launched judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court.

The judicial review challenged a bias application which was last year rejected by Federal Circuit Court judge Alexander "Sandy" Street.

Judge Street came under extraordinary scrutiny as a result of the case after an affidavit revealed the newly appointed judge had rejected almost every migration appeal that came before him.

Central to the evidence in the case was an affidavit sworn by the editor of the Federal Court Reports and the Federal Law Reports, Victor Kline.

Mr Kline identified 254 immigration decisions handed down during the first six months of 2015 by Judge Street, who was appointed to the bench by Attorney-General George Brandis late in 2014.

Of the 254 cases, 252 had been decided in favour of the Immigration Minister.

In the other two cases, the Minister had conceded errors, resulting in judgement for the applicant.

Got a confidential news tip? Email ABC Investigations at investigations@abc.net.au For more sensitive information: Text message using the Signal phone app +61 436 369 072 No system is 100 per cent secure, but the Signal app uses end-to-end encryption and can protect your identity. Please read the terms and conditions.

Mr Kline's affidavit also revealed that 100 per cent of Judge Street's cases were handed down ex tempore — or on the spot — in contrast to many Federal Circuit Court judgements which are commonly reserved.

Further, 64 per cent of Judge Street's rulings were handed down at the first court date, a highly unusual practice which last year attracted notable criticism from the full Federal Court.

'Statistics do not speak for themselves'

In a full Federal Court hearing last week, barrister Jay Williams argued that the statistics relating to Judge Street's immigration rulings would lead a hypothetical observer to conclude the judge was biased.

But in a unanimous ruling delivered today, Chief Justice James Allsop and Justices Susan Kenny and John Griffiths rejected that proposition.

"An allegation of bias against a judge on the basis of prejudgement is a serious matter not the least because it carries with it the suggestion that the judge has failed to honour his or her judicial oath," the judges said in the ruling.

The Federal Court judges found the statistics were irrelevant for a number of reasons.

"The mere fact that a particular judge has decided a number of cases, the facts and circumstances of which are unknown ... does not go any way to assisting the hypothetical observer making an informed assessment as to whether that judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question in a particular proceeding before that judge," the court found.

Application not 'public interest test case'

The court took the unusual step of criticising the applicant's lawyers' administrative conduct of the case, and rejected the proposition that the case was a "public interest test case".

"We rejected the applicant's characterisation of the proceedings as a 'public interest test case' or one which was aimed at preserving public confidence in the judiciary," the Federal Court judges said.

"The proceedings were primarily designed to advance the applicant's personal rights and interests under migration law."

A leading academic expert on judicial bias, Monash University Professor Matthew Groves, said the court had "applied the normal rules governing bias" which specified that "statistics do not speak for themselves".

"The court noted that the statistics should not be accepted without question and could have a different explanation, for example perhaps most of the cases Justice Street dismissed were ones that he should have rejected," Professor Groves said.

Loading...