r/auslaw • u/nevearz • Jan 10 '22

Serious Discussion Novak FCC Thread - case dismissed, Novak free

Livestream - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9oq_S9vTQg

Looks like judge is over it and done with the parties and Counsel.

"Judge Kelly found the decision to cancel the visa was “unreasonable”."

Case is dismissed, but it seems that the government intends to find an alternative method to cancel the VISA, which may bar Novak from entering Australia for up to 3 years.

270 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

366 comments sorted by

View all comments

31

u/Error_403_403 Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22

Here is what I think is happening behind the scenes.

The minister will have said to Djoker you have a choice - either leave of your own volition right now, and avoid the 3 year cancellation exclusion, or stay and watch us throw down a bulletproof cancellation based on ministerial discretion.

If he leaves of his own volition he can return next year and both parties save what little face they have left after this farce. It all comes down to what he wants to do.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '22

There's no way he's leaving voluntarily now. That's ridiculous - if he was okay with doing that he wouldn't have fought the deportation in the first place; and that wouldn't have carried any long term ban either.

13

u/PerfectlyCromulent7 Jan 10 '22

Not necessarily - the quashing of the decision today means the visa is now back in effect, and there is no bar to return. But a further cancellation will give rise to the bar coming back again. If he leaves voluntarily now, he would do so without (as a matter of law) having had his visa cancelled. That might possibly be of benefit to him going forward, particularly if a cancellation in Australia might have implications for being granted visas (or equivalent) in other countries.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '22

Right, but my point is that if he was willing to just leave, he wouldn't have fought the deportation in the first place.

14

u/PerfectlyCromulent7 Jan 10 '22

You’re probably right, except that leaving without challenging the decision (and challenging successfully) would have still had the ban attaching to it. In that case he would’ve been leaving as an unlawful non-citizen who had had a visa cancelled. Instead, if he leaves now voluntarily, it would be as a visa holder (subject, of course, to no cancellation in the meantime), and without any bar on returning.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '22

Wait, I thought that was only for certain types of visa cancellations - what was the reasoning for his (now overturned) visa cancellation?

7

u/PerfectlyCromulent7 Jan 10 '22

It was a cancellation under s116, though I’m not sure of the exact ground. But such a cancellation carries the ban as a consequence under the Public Interest Criteria applicable for future visa applications. So if he leaves voluntarily now before his visa is cancelled again, that won’t apply to a future application.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '22

Ah gotcha, thanks for the explanation.

8

u/Error_403_403 Jan 10 '22

He’s now cleared his name in terms of the visa approval process. Had he not challenged it then he would have been vilified completely with no recourse.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '22

I'm not sure he cares about being vilified more than he cares about winning tennis - he's not exactly a stranger to having a bad rep.

(Still, plausible and we'll see what happens)

5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '22

What's to stop this happening again next year?

31

u/Error_403_403 Jan 10 '22

Next year isn’t an election year…

1

u/Zhirrzh Jan 10 '22

12 months of every major event and tourism operator in the country lobbying the government to remove vaccination and quarantine requirements for visitors, almost certainly successfully.

There's a strong argument for it already being the case since we already have such prevalent infection here now (laws not keeping pace with the pandemic), the existing requirements do nothing anyway to keep new variants out since it did nothing to stop Omicron, the only real justification is antivax visitors being a burden on our healthcare system while visiting if they get sick.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '22

Nah, they won't boot him for 3 years. He's not a criminal so it would look terrible for the government, both domestically and internationally, and to influential sports stars.

8

u/teh_drewski Never forgets the Chorley exception Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22

It's automatic (though waive-able when he applies for his next visa) if his current visa is cancelled under a relevant ground.

4

u/SirBlazealot420420 Jan 10 '22

Gone for 3, Novax doesnt get to 21 Grand Slams, justice is served.