EXPLANATION: How Djokovic intends to fight deportation in court

MY NUMBER 1 RECOMMENDATION TO CREATE FULL TIME INCOME ONLINE: CLICK HERE

Novak Djokovic won in his first round of lawsuits against the Australian authorities seeking to deport him. But the first issue of world tennis now faces an extraordinary challenge in its second round on Sunday as it takes over, which some describe as God’s powers as immigration minister on visa and public interest issues.

Djokovic received a court appeal this week against a border official’s decision to revoke his visa. He overcame procedural errors related to the confusion of Australian vaccination rules against COVID-19.

Immigration Minister Alex Hawk’s intervention on Friday to revoke his visa for the second time, for what Djokovic’s lawyers have described as “radically different” reasons, Djokovic opposes Australian politics and the law.

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF THE MINISTER?

Hawke has a “personal power” to revoke Djokovic’s visa under section 133C of the 1958 Migration Act.

Hawke had to make sure that Djokovic’s presence in Australia was “perhaps or would be a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community.”

The minister also had to make sure that ordering Djokovic’s deportation would be in the “public interest”, a term that has no legal definition.

Unlike the decision of the Deputy Prime Minister for the Minister’s decision, “the rules of natural justice do not apply”. This means that the minister did not have to tell Djokovic that he intended to deport him.

Hawke could have secretly revoked Djokovic’s visa and then informed the Serbian tennis star a few days later that he had to leave. If the Australian border forces came to detain Djokovic, they would only have to legally reveal that he does not have a visa.

Under section 133F of the law, Djokovic could then ask the minister to change his decision, but the only realistic option would be to appeal it in court.

HOW DOES THE MINISTER EXECUTE HIS ASSISTANCE?

In Djokovic’s case, Australian government lawyers warned him that the minister intended to intervene on Monday when a judge renewed his visa. The high reputation of the star athlete might have encouraged the government to even show up in their hands.

In the days before the minister’s action, Djokovic’s lawyers provided evidence as to why he had the right to keep his visa and allow him to defend his title at the Australian Open.

While Hawke has a great deal of discretion in determining the public interest in visa revocation, he must also be thoughtful and detailed in his conclusions.

“These decisions are not easy. There is a case law that forces the Minister to actively engage in materials and decision-making in the personal exercise of this power, ”said immigration lawyer Kian Bone.

“It’s not that he (Hawke) could say in one line: ‘Dear Mr Djokovic, your visa has been revoked.’ He cannot allow a bureaucrat or a clerk to write a decision for him, look at it for two minutes and sign it, ”Bone added.

HOW DO YOU IMPLEMENT THE DECISION OF THE MINISTER?

Because the powers of the minister are so broad and discretionary, there are potentially fewer grounds for appeal than for the decision of a civil servant acting on the minister’s authority. But courts have overturned ministerial decisions in the past.

The powers of the immigration minister are among the broadest provided by Australian law, said Greg Barns, a lawyer with experience in visa cases.

one the criticism of this special power is that it is so broad and actually allows a minister to play God with someone’s life, ”Barns said.

“It is inevitable that political considerations would become part of the decision because this concept of public interest is so broad that it allows the minister to take political considerations into account effectively, although theoretically they should not do so,” Barnes added.

For the Conservative coalition of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, political considerations are mounting and elections by May at the latest.

Although Australia has one of the highest vaccination rates against COVID-19 in the world, the government is concerned about Djokovic’s popularity among those who oppose vaccine mandates or are skeptical about vaccine efficacy.

Djokovic’s lawyers disagree that these feelings are a legitimate reason to deny the sports star an attempt at a record 21 grand slam titles.

“The minister is considering the possibility of an exciting anti-vax sentiment only if he is present” at the Australian Open, Djokovic’s lawyer Nick Wood told the court on Friday.

Hawke’s reasons do not take into account the possible impact on these views if Djokovic is forcibly removed, Wood said.

“The minister is not even thinking about what effect this could have on the anti-waxing mood and actually on public order,” Wood said. “That seems obviously irrational.”

MY NUMBER 1 RECOMMENDATION TO CREATE FULL TIME INCOME ONLINE: CLICK HERE

Leave a Comment

error: Content is protected !!