Ohio

How tennis star Novak Djokovic plans to fight deportation in court before the Australian Open

Novak Djokovic won his first legal round against Australian authorities who wanted to deport him. However, No. 1 in world tennis faces a formidable challenge in the second round of Sunday as it undertakes what is called the immigration minister’s divine power on visa and public interest issues. Djokovic won the court case this week. Against the border authorities’ decision to cancel his visa. He has won a procedural error related to Australia’s misleading COVID-19 vaccination regulations. Immigration Minister Alex Hawke intervened on Friday to cancel his visa because Djokovic’s lawyers described Djokovic as “fundamentally different” to Australian politics and law. Do you have the power of the minister? Hawk has the “personal power” to revoke Djokovic’s visa under Section 133C of the 1958 Immigration Act. Hawk said that Djokovic’s presence in Australia “may be a risk to health, security, or order. The Australian community.” The Minister also has no legal definition of ordering Djokovic’s deportation. I had to convince myself that it was in the term “public interest.” Unlike the decisions of government supporters, the minister’s decision “does not apply the rules of natural justice.” That said, the minister did not have to tell Djokovic that he was planning to deport, and Hawk could have secretly canceled Djokovic’s visa and informed him that he would have to go to a Serbian tennis star a few days later. there is. Had the Australian Border Forces detained Djokovic, they would have had to legally reveal that he did not have a visa. Under Article 133F of the Act, Djokovic could request the Minister to overturn his decision, but the only viable option was to appeal in court. How does the minister use his power? In the case of Djokovic, an Australian government lawyer warned that the judge plans to intervene on Monday when the visa is revived. The high profile of star athletes may have encouraged the government to even hand them over, Djokovic’s lawyer holds a visa for a few days before the minister acts and defends the Australian Open title. Provided evidence of why was allowed. To define the public interest in revoking a visa, he must also be thoughtful and detailed in his reasoning. “This decision doesn’t mean that he (Hawk) can say,’Djokovic, your visa has been cancelled,'” said immigration lawyer Kian Bourne. You can’t have bureaucrats and officials write down your decision and approve it after two minutes. ” How to overturn the minister’s decision. The minister’s authority is so broad and discretionary that the reason for the appeal is potentially less than the decision of a civil servant to act under the minister’s authority. However, the court overturned the minister’s decision in the past. The immigration minister’s authority is one of the broadest offered under Australian law, said Greg Barns, a lawyer who experienced the Visa case. “It effectively enables the minister to play God in someone’s life,” Burns said. “Theoretically it shouldn’t be,” Burns added. Political consideration is rising for the conservative coalition of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who is scheduled to be elected by May at the latest. In the world, the government is concerned about Djokovic’s popularity among those who oppose the mandatory vaccine and those who are skeptical about the effectiveness of the vaccine. We do not admit that it is a valid reason to deny the sports star’s attempt at the record 21 Grand Slam titles. At the Australian Open, Djokovic’s lawyer Nick Wood spoke in court on Friday. If Djokovic was forcibly dismissed, Hawk’s reasons did not take into account the potential impact on their attitude, Wood said. About anti-vax sentiment and actually public order. ” “It obviously seems absurd.”

Novak Djokovic won his first legal round against Australian authorities who wanted to deport him. However, No. 1 in world tennis faces a formidable challenge in the second round of Sunday to undertake what is called the divine power of the Immigration Minister on visa and public interest issues.

Djokovic won his court’s appeal this week against the border authorities’ decision to revoke his visa. He overcame procedural errors related to Australia’s misleading COVID-19 vaccination regulations.

Friday’s immigration minister Alex Hawke’s intervention to cancel a visa as a “fundamentally different” reason for Djokovic’s lawyers to oppose Australian politics and law.

What is the power of the minister?

Hawk has “personal authority” to revoke Djokovic’s visa under Section 133C of the 1958 Immigration Act.

Hawk needed to be satisfied that Djokovic’s presence in Australia “may or may be a risk to the health, security, or order of the Australian community.”

The minister also had to be satisfied that ordering Djokovic’s deportation was a “public interest” and a term without a legal definition.

Unlike the decisions of government supporters, the minister’s decision “does not apply the rules of natural justice.” This meant that the minister did not have to tell Djokovic that he was planning to deport.

Hawk may have secretly canceled Djokovic’s visa and informed a Serbian tennis star that he had to go a few days later. Had the Australian Border Forces detained Djokovic, they would have had to legally reveal that he did not have a visa.

Under Article 133F of the Act, Djokovic could request the Minister to overturn his decision, but the only viable option was to appeal in court.

How does the minister use his power?

In the case of Djokovic, an Australian government lawyer warned that the judge plans to intervene on Monday when the visa is revived. The popularity of star athletes may have encouraged the government to even hand them over.

Djokovic’s lawyer provided evidence of why he was allowed to hold a visa and keep the Australian Open title in the days before the minister acted.

Hawk has the drastic discretion to define the public interest in canceling a visa, but he must also be thoughtful and detailed in his reasoning.

“These decisions are not simple. There is a case law that forces the minister to be actively involved in materials and decisions when exercising this authority personally,” said Kian Bourne of Immigration Law. Said.

“He (Hawk) cannot say” Mr. Djokovic, the visa has been canceled “with one liner. He can’t let bureaucrats and officials write a decision for him, watch it for two minutes, and approve it, “Bourne added.

How do you overturn the minister’s decision?

The minister’s authority is so broad and discretionary that the reason for the appeal is potentially less than the decision of a civil servant to act under the minister’s authority. However, the court overturned the minister’s decision in the past.

The immigration minister’s authority is one of the broadest offered under Australian law, said Greg Barns, a lawyer who experienced the Visa case.

“One of the criticisms of this particular power is that it is so widespread that it effectively allows the minister to play God in someone’s life,” Burns said.

“Although it should not be done in theory, the concept of the public interest is so broad that the minister can effectively take into account political considerations, so political considerations form part of the decision. It is inevitable to do, “Burns added.

Political consideration is rising for the conservative coalition of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who is scheduled to be elected by May at the latest.

Australia is one of the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in the world, but the government is concerned about Djokovic’s popularity among those who oppose vaccination requirements and who are skeptical of vaccine efficacy. I am holding

Djokovic’s lawyers do not admit that these feelings are justified in denying sports star attempts at the record 21 Grand Slam titles.

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

According to Wood, Hawk’s reason does not take into account the potential impact on these attitudes if Djokovic is forcibly eliminated.

“The minister hasn’t considered anything about anti-vax sentiment and how it could actually affect public order,” Wood said. “It obviously seems absurd.”

How tennis star Novak Djokovic plans to fight deportation in court before the Australian Open

Source link How tennis star Novak Djokovic plans to fight deportation in court before the Australian Open

Related Articles

Back to top button