Novax Djokivic

[PJ87]

Any chance you could provide some evidence of that? And nice to see absolutely no criticism of Djokovic's behaviour regarding the clear disparities in his story.

On the radio this morning they had someone out there talking about it (tennis expert or whoever)

Apparently it was the case that it was for being antivax and the social unrest it would cause rather than his visa lie

They said they think it's because a judge had already thrown that out that they had to go with that not sure

The guardian ran similar I'll try and find it

 

[PJ87]

That's not the case, he lied on his visa application, which is why it was revoked. {edit: sorry everyone else already told you that}

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-visa-cancellation?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
@Blue in Munich aswell

This is what's reported

On Sunday the court upheld the decision of Australian immigration minister, Alex Hawke, to cancel the visa on the basis Djokovic’s presence in Australia might risk “civil unrest” as he is a “talisman of anti-vaccination sentiment”.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

On the radio this morning they had someone out there talking about it (tennis expert or whoever)

Apparently it was the case that it was for being antivax and the social unrest it would cause rather than his visa lie

They said they think it's because a judge had already thrown that out that they had to go with that not sure

The guardian ran similar I'll try and find it

There's no doubt the govt will have considered the optics, but legally he was thrown out for his visa lies.

 

[PJ87]

There's no doubt the govt will have considered the optics, but legally he was thrown out for his visa lies.

After a week’s deliberation, Hawke cancelled Djokovic’s visa again on Friday on the new ground that his presence might be a risk to “health and good order”.

The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, backed the cancellation decision, arguing that Australians had “made many sacrifices during this pandemic, and they rightly expect the result of those sacrifices to be protected

”.”.


that's not the official line coming out tho

Maybe not kicking him out on the lie due to that's a ban from coming back where as this is try again next year

 

[PJ87]

There's no doubt the govt will have considered the optics, but legally he was thrown out for his visa lies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60014059

BBC says same

 

[IanM]

The delays seem as a result of his right to appeal.

He has a right not to have a vaccine, his choice.

The Aussies have the right to say, "your call cobber, but you ain't coming in until you're vaxxed!

He's now vexed for not being vaxxed!!

 

[Voyager EMH]

It is the Australian government's job to consider the wider implications and consequences. They have made these views known.

It was the judges' job to consider the legalities of his visa application. This they have done.

EDIT: Mix these two together and you can create a whole host of "stories".
Keep them separate and it is quite boringly simple.

 

[Foxholer]

That's not the case, he lied on his visa application, which is why it was revoked. {edit: sorry everyone else already told you that}

What lie was there on his visa application? Have you seen it?
It was simply rejected because he was unvaccinated, so failed entry requirements!

 

[3offTheTee]

What lie was there on his visa application? Have you seen it?
It was simply rejected because he was unvaccinated, so failed entry requirements!

Did he say something about not going to any other countries when he had been to Spain in the period when he should not have gone?

 

[ColchesterFC]

What lie was there on his visa application? Have you seen it?
It was simply rejected because he was unvaccinated, so failed entry requirements!

Claiming not to have travelled in the previous 14 days when he'd been to Spain. He claimed that an aid had completed the form incorrectly.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/11/aust...-djokovic-lied-on-travel-entry-form-15897188/

 

[Beezerk]

Did he say something about not going to any other countries when he had been to Spain in the period when he should not have gone?

Yes, I believe it was about travelling to other countries in the weeks before going to Australia.

 

[Blue in Munich]

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 133C
Minister's personal powers to cancel visas on section 116 grounds
Action by Minister--natural justice applies

(1) If a notification was given under section 119 to the holder of a visa in relation to a ground for cancelling the visa under section 116, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the former Migration Review Tribunal or former Refugee Review Tribunal, or a delegate of the Minister:

(a) decided that the ground did not exist; or

(b) decided not to exercise the power in section 116 to cancel the visa (despite the existence of the ground);

the Minister may set aside that decision and cancel the visa if:

(c) the Minister considers that the ground exists; and

(d) the visa holder does not satisfy the Minister that the ground does not exist; and

(e) the Minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa.

So the Minister can chuck him out if there are grounds under s.116 for cancelling the visa. So what does s.116 say?

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 116
Power to cancel
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that:

(a) the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on a particular fact or circumstance that is no longer the case or that no longer exists; or

(aa) the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on the existence of a particular fact or circumstance, and that fact or circumstance did not exist; or

(b) its holder has not complied with a condition of the visa; or

(c) another person required to comply with a condition of the visa has not complied with that condition; or

(d) if its holder has not entered Australia or has so entered but has not been immigration cleared--it would be liable to be cancelled under Subdivision C (incorrect information given by holder) if its holder had so entered and been immigration cleared; or

(e) the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to:

(i) the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community; or

(ii) the health or safety of an individual or individuals; or

(f) the visa should not have been granted because the application for it or its grant was in contravention of this Act or of another law of the Commonwealth



So the grounds for cancelling a visa would be incorrect information given by the applicant.

The Minister therefore appears to have decided that it is not in the public interest to allow someone who has clearly lied on their declaration to enter the country. And has been made abundantly clear from the number of Australians asking why he should be allowed to do this when they have suffered hardships by abiding by the regulations that the Minister is absolutely right.

Absolutely nothing to do with Djokovic's views on vaccines, everything to do with the fact that he has broken Australia's strict immigration rules.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...022/January/Migration_Act_-_Visa_Cancellation

 

[AmandaJR]

I think last year he did the 2 weeks quarantine...then won the tournament. Clearly felt he was above doing that this time round and tried to buck the system...come on Andy (but more realistically come on Rafa)!!

 

[PJ87]

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 133C
Minister's personal powers to cancel visas on section 116 grounds
Action by Minister--natural justice applies

(1) If a notification was given under section 119 to the holder of a visa in relation to a ground for cancelling the visa under section 116, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the former Migration Review Tribunal or former Refugee Review Tribunal, or a delegate of the Minister:

(a) decided that the ground did not exist; or

(b) decided not to exercise the power in section 116 to cancel the visa (despite the existence of the ground);

the Minister may set aside that decision and cancel the visa if:

(c) the Minister considers that the ground exists; and

(d) the visa holder does not satisfy the Minister that the ground does not exist; and

(e) the Minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa.

So the Minister can chuck him out if there are grounds under s.116 for cancelling the visa. So what does s.116 say?

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 116
Power to cancel
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that:

(a) the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on a particular fact or circumstance that is no longer the case or that no longer exists; or

(aa) the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on the existence of a particular fact or circumstance, and that fact or circumstance did not exist; or

(b) its holder has not complied with a condition of the visa; or

(c) another person required to comply with a condition of the visa has not complied with that condition; or

(d) if its holder has not entered Australia or has so entered but has not been immigration cleared--it would be liable to be cancelled under Subdivision C (incorrect information given by holder) if its holder had so entered and been immigration cleared; or

(e) the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to:

(i) the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community; or

(ii) the health or safety of an individual or individuals; or

(f) the visa should not have been granted because the application for it or its grant was in contravention of this Act or of another law of the Commonwealth; or

(fa) in the case of a student visa:

(i) its holder is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student; or

(ii) its holder has engaged, is engaging, or is likely to engage, while in Australia, in conduct (including omissions) not contemplated by the visa; or

(g) a prescribed ground for cancelling a visa applies to the holder.

So the grounds for cancelling a visa would be incorrect information given by the applicant.

The Minister therefore appears to have decided that it is not in the public interest to allow someone who has clearly lied on their declaration to enter the country. And has been made abundantly clear from the number of Australians asking why he should be allowed to do this when they have suffered hardships by abiding by the regulations that the Minister is absolutely right.

Absolutely nothing to do with Djokovic's views on vaccines, everything to do with the fact that he has broken Australia's strict immigration rules.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...022/January/Migration_Act_-_Visa_Cancellation

Whilst that is true they said it wasn't cancelled on those grounds it was cancelled on other grounds

Maybe they wanted it water tight so a judge couldn't revoke it again who knows

The fact is the official reason isnt the incorrect information

 

[Foxholer]

Claiming not to have travelled in the previous 14 days when he'd been to Spain. He claimed that an aid had completed the form incorrectly.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/11/aust...-djokovic-lied-on-travel-entry-form-15897188/

Did he say something about not going to any other countries when he had been to Spain in the period when he should not have gone?

If that was truly the case, I'd have thought the Fed govt would have listed that as another - and perhaps more damning, if provable in time - reason for the cancellation.
All newspaper 'claims' I've seen are/were suggestions/questions only.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Whilst that is true they said it wasn't cancelled on those grounds it was cancelled on other grounds

Maybe they wanted it water tight so a judge couldn't revoke it again who knows

The fact is the official reason isnt the incorrect information[/QUOTE]

The fact is that without the incorrect information the power to deport him does nor exist; they only get the power to kick him out in the public interest because of the incorrect information.

 

[PJ87]

The fact is that without the incorrect information the power to deport him does nor exist; they only get the power to kick him out in the public interest because of the incorrect information.

Fair enough

 

[yandabrown]

Quote of the day comes fom comedian Phil Cook "When it comes to tennis... us Ausies know how to return a Serb"

 

[Blue in Munich]

Quote of the day comes fom comedian Phil Cook "When it comes to tennis... us Ausies know how to return a Serb"

Brilliant!

 

[Foxholer]

Or any other clause of Section 116
Section E, for example.

There appears to be no indication that the reason involved any lies that may/may not have been on the original visa application.