World Immigration Minister Alex Hawke is awaiting a decision on whether to use his ministerial power to revoke the visa of tennis player Novak Djokovic.
The question he has to answer is: Is Djokovic “a risk to the health, safety or well-being of the Australian community or part of the Australian community”, as stated in the Immigration Act?
Djokovic was not at risk under Australian policy when he boarded his flight to Dubai on January 5. By the time he landed, he had become one.
Border Force policy changed while Djokovic was on the flight
The Australian government did not accept a valid medical waiver from the Victorian government based on Djokovic’s original revocation.
At 7.30 pm, Abul Risvi, former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration, explained that “until January 5th, the border force had a policy of accepting exempt medical certificates from state governments, such as the Victorian state government. Face value.” [on] On January 6, the policy changed. “
Prime Minister Scott Morrison was asked about the exemption before Djokovic’s arrival.
“It’s about the Victorian government,” he said. “They have allowed her to come to Australia, so we are working on that decision, and it has been going on for the last two years.”
It is also on public record that at least one other player and one official flew to Victoria with the same discount before January 5th.
He was arrested on January 6 and deported along with Czech player Renata Vorakova, who is now deciding to sue Tennis Australia for the cost.
Expresses intention to abolish border force
The Border Force first issued a “notice of intent to cancel visa” to Djokovic in an interview at 4:35 a.m. on January 6, about five hours after he landed and was taken off the plane with his team before allowing other passengers. To fall down
During the interview, he asked to delay any decision until 8 a.m. so he could talk to his lawyers and officials at Tennis Australia.
The request was accepted by a representative of the Border Force.
Then, according to documents, another detailed interview began at 6:07 a.m. in the “Record of the Visa Cancellation Decision” filed in Federal Circuit Court.
It starts with Djokovic’s idea of why the visa should not be revoked.
Mr Djokovic said the grounds did not exist and that he was surprised that the Commonwealth government had insufficient information, as his medical waiver was granted by an independent expert medical review panel commissioned by Tennis Australia.
He provided all the medical reports, PCR tests and blood samples for testing.
The Border Force representative gives details of evidence and findings that provide satisfaction. There are grounds for cancellation.
“Previous infections with COVID-19 would not be considered a medical paradox for the COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.
“Non-consumption of COVID-19 causes a great deal of health risks to those who contract COVID-19 and spread it to others, any of which will be an additional burden on Australia’s health system.
“The Australian Government has been instrumental in slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the Australian community by ensuring that non-vaccinated persons do not enter Australia.
“Based on the above information, I am satisfied that the visa holder has grounds to consider revoking the subclass GG-408 visa.”
The delegate weighs in to cancel
The delegate then needs to weigh a series of other factors to weigh the decision to cancel or not. Legal implications, behaviors, previous records and binding requirements are all measured for a visit to Australia.
Document holders are required to enter or stay in Australia, the document asks.
The representative wrote: “The visa holder has stated in his IPC that the purpose of his visit to Australia is business. The visa holder also stated that he is traveling to Australia to participate in the Australian Open.
“The basis[d] Above all, I consider visa binding a mandatory requirement for travel to Australia and I have set reasonable weight in favor of not canceling the visa. “
Next, the question of compliance:
“The visa holder has a consistent travel history with no evidence of non-compliance with the visa requirements. So I give some weight to this factor in favor of not canceling the visa.”
This is followed by an assessment of the degree of difficulty in case the visa is revoked:
“The visa holder has not made any specific claims regarding the difficulties associated with the possible cancellation of the visa, but I acknowledge that the cancellation of his subclass 408 visa will result in a reasonable level of inconvenience and / or financial or emotional hardship.
“Based on the above, I put some weight on the side of not canceling the visa.”
Circumstances beyond the control of the visa holder are then considered:
The visa holder stated that Tennis Australia had granted him a medical exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement and had completed the Australian Travel Declaration on his behalf.
“I think Tennis Australia facilitated his medical exemption and Australian travel announcement based on the information provided to him by the visa holder.
“As such, I do not consider creating conditions beyond the control of these visa holders.
“Based on the above, I apply significant weight in favor of visa cancellation for this factor.”
The visa holder’s behavior in relation to the department is also weighed in the present and any past occasions (even if they are truthful and helpful in their dealings with the department):
“There is no indication that the visa holder has assisted in any of the dealings with the department. The visa holder has assisted in the current process.
“So I give some weight to this factor in favor of not canceling the visa.”
Finally, enter the calculations for any other relevant reasons (including mandatory legal consequences):
“I have considered the legal consequences of the visa holder’s decision to cancel the visa and if the visa is revoked, he will:
- Applying for a fixed visa will be subject to the s48 bar
- The public interest will be affected by risk factors under criteria 4013 which may affect eligibility for other visas in the future.
- May be responsible for detention and deportation from Australia
“Given the fact that visa holders travel to Australia regularly to compete in tennis competitions, I consider the above results important.
“As such, I weigh in fairly in favor of not canceling the visa for this factor.”
The “significant weight” applied to one question in support of visa cancellation outpaced the other five questions, all of which received overwhelming response.
The delegates ticked the appropriate box and one of the most bizarre stories in Australia’s sporting history began.
Officials at the Australian Open will play the main draw on Thursday at 3 p.m. The interest in this year’s tournament is elsewhere: whether the defending champion can play, or whether he is in exile for a policy change while in mid-flight.