Djokovic Visa Cancellation Upheld

Following the overturning of Djokovic’s visa cancellation, various other issues regarding the process of the 9-time Australian Open winner’s entry into the country started to come into public view and with subsequent scrutiny. The main question raised regarding Djokovic’s entry was whether or not he lied on an official Australian border entry form. It became increasingly clear to officials, through social media posts, that Djokovic had, in fact, travelled 2 weeks prior to his entry into Australia. This was especially concerning as on his entry form; it was explicitly outlined that he had not travelled 2 weeks prior to entering Australia. Djokovic maintained that it was merely a “human error”, and the wrong box was not ticked purposefully, however, this mishap was enough to spark unrest within the government and wider public.

The Immigration Minister, Alex Hawke, enforced his ministerial powers by cancelling Djokovic’s visa on the 14^th of January 2022. Mr Hawke outlined his reasoning for this decision in a public statement, proclaiming that it was made, “on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so”. This was corroborated by Prime Minister Scott Morrison who gave notice to the sacrifices made by Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic and that they, “rightly expect the result of those sacrifices to be protected”.

The world number one tennis star, by his lawyers, filed submissions in a second appearance to the Federal Court of Australia, on the grounds that the ministerial intervention that caused his visa cancellation was invalid. Djokovic’s legal team set out to make the argument that Mr Hawke’s ministerial intervention was, “irrational or unreasonable in a way that made it unlawful”. When considering this burden, the court specifically outlined that it was not a function of the court in the relevant circumstance to make a judgement upon, “the merits or wisdom of the decision”, it was merely an evaluation on whether the decision was so far irrational, deeming it unlawful. There were various factors that were given consideration during the hearing. These will be briefly outlined below;

Whether the Mr Hawke was genuinely satisfied of the potential risk to the “health, safety or good order” of the community.

• It was found that, “based on relevant material”, such as Djokovic’s views on vaccinations, that this was not an illogical inference.

Whether Mr Hawke’s fear of Djokovic encouraging anti-vaccination sentiment was illogical.

• It was again found that, irrespective of evidence, a decision on this matter could be made through a simple, “recognition of human behaviour from a modest familiarity with human experience”. Mr Hawke essentially outlined that a large number of young people would watch the Australian Open and Australia was possibly at risk of having a personified idolisation of anti-vaccination sentiment. In the eyes of the courts, this was not illogical reasoning and was, in fact, entirely sufficient.

In the end, Mr Hawke’s decision to execute his ministerial intervention, resulting in Djokovic’s deportation was upheld by the court and the 20-time Grand Slam winner was forced to leave the country. Furthermore, he was ordered to pay the Federal Government’s legal costs and could possibly face a 3-year ban from entering the country.

This case showed the severity and seriousness that the Federal Government is treating the COVID-19 pandemic with, especially in relation to travel and migration.

If you would like assistance in migrating to Australia, having someone you know migrated to Australia, or just any migration matter in general, Straits Lawyers are here to help. We are now offering online services in both English and Chinese.

Straits Lawyers is evolving! With our recent growth and development, we have expanded and are excited to announce the launch of our new name HandO Lawyers. Stand by for the new age of legal representation brought to you by HandO!

Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice and Straits Lawyers will not be legally responsible for any actions you take based on this article.