Novak Djokovic’s attorneys on Saturday morning had been anticipated to problem the Australian immigration minister’s determination to cancel his visa once more, however consultants mentioned that he would discover it rather more troublesome than his first courtroom problem.
Djokovic was slated to fulfill with immigration officers on Saturday morning in Australia, then go to courtroom for a listening to at 10:15 a.m., earlier than Justice David O’Callaghan of the Federal Courtroom of Australia.
If he doesn’t need to merely adjust to the cancellation and depart the nation, he might want to apply for a courtroom injunction to cease the Australian authorities from deporting him whereas his attorneys file a problem, in keeping with Mary Anne Kenny, an affiliate professor of regulation at Murdoch College.
That might enable him to remain within the nation, however he would almost definitely be held in immigration detention, the place he was stored for 5 days earlier than his first courtroom problem.
He may, nonetheless, apply to the federal government for a bridging visa to let him keep out of immigration detention and proceed to play tennis. However in keeping with Daniel Estrin, an immigration lawyer, Djokovic is unlikely to be granted such a visa as a result of he must abide by the situation that he can not work. His participation within the Australian Open which begins on Monday, then, would disqualify him.
However as a result of the discretionary powers of the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, are so broad, Estrin and Kenny mentioned Djokovic would discover it considerably harder than his first attraction.
The minister simply wanted to show that Djokovic is likely to be a threat to the well being, security or good order of the Australian group, Estrin mentioned. That may be a very low threshold — “anybody is likely to be a threat to the Australian group in the event you take a look at it very broadly” — making it extraordinarily troublesome for Djokovic to argue his case on substance, he added.
As an alternative, Djokovic would wish to show that Hawke made an “jurisdictional error,” or utilized the regulation improper, Estrin mentioned — a a lot larger authorized threshold.
Djokovic’s attorneys won’t be allowed to replead his case or argue that he ought to have been allowed into Australia, Estrin mentioned, which means that, as in his first attraction, he must succeed on procedural grounds.
“The courtroom doesn’t take a look at whether or not the minister made the precise determination,” Estrin mentioned. “The courtroom will solely take a look at whether or not the minister dedicated some error of regulation.”