Search results

Legend

Nah

Maybe he can sneak in across the Rio Grande

We’ll see. You could be right but with applications predominately being electronic these days, automatic rejection would be an issue.

Not just 3 year ban from Australia but there have been visas I’ve applied for (particularly of note, ESTA I think has this) with a question along the lines of “Has any country refused you entry or cancelled a visa”. This has far reaching consequences for his ability to travel elsewhere.

And, under 133(c) 3, he only has to be satisfied that a ground exists. The ground doesn’t actually have to exist is my reading as long as he believes it.

I’m unsure but I don’t believe so, hence the lack of a precedent from Wood.

This would be the ground under section 116 that he considered, which seems suitably broad as to give little wriggle room: (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...

It’s 133(c)3 of the Migration Act but it’s not reserved for that. It has broad latitude however the Minister not only has to consider that it’s in the public interest (test 2), he also needs to be satisfied that grounds for cancellation exists under section 116 (test 1). It’s his consideration...

That’s what Nick Wood claimed. I haven’t read the full decision.

He’s just trying to get things moving as quickly as possible. No point him dealing with it if he knows it’s going higher.

Every state capital city

No difference.

Judge Kelly is just working on the principal that, no matter what he ruled, one party will take it up to the Fed so it’s better to go straight there for expediency.

No chance.

Depends on the outcome on Saturday / Sunday but no, he’ll be in detention unless the government are ordered otherwise.

No order really, all agreed between the 2 parties. All Kelly did was shift it to the Federal Court of Australia. Djokovic in detention (albeit with time out with his legal team) at 8am tomorrow.

Volunteering is counted as work. He’ll be covered under worker’s comp, PI/PL (in case he hits balls into people’s throats”) etc.

Mai think the analogy is someone else through the book and the judge will stand back and watch it hit him.

I’m saying that’s what it sounded like, just that it came from Nick Wood so I’d need to read the actual wording to confirm.

I’d need to read it to see if it was along the lines of “Even if we were to concede…” but it sounded like they conceded on those grounds at the time Djokovic came in. They’ve since tightened up the wording in the public documentation so, if It was a valid exemption then, it certainly isn’t now.

100% that’s what they did. They just said “Fine, we’ll let you have all of that, but we have a reverse get out of jail free card” It should be noted that the ambiguity Wood said they’d focus on has been changed so nobody else can use that argument.

Actually pretty impressed a mob this incompetent came up with the strategy of just changing the playing field and destroying all the preparation of Wood, Holdenson et al. Still ***** though.

:-D:-D:-D:-D The Hague

He’s been out for several days, so nothing.

They don't need to prove that in court. The only thing they need to prove in court is that they considered the two points in section 1333(c) that confer the absolute power on the minister to make that decision.

No, judge is considering the arguments around transfer but both parties were in agreement on the hypothetical schedule so it's likely that will be what happens.

Agreed. The problem is a lot of the people suggesting he get treated differently are part of the "**** off, we're full" crowd. I'm of the opinion that him being perceived to be treated badly shines a light on our immigration policies but him getting preferential treatment or skirting around the...

Thanks, never knew that.

He was in a perfect position to do something of real good and all he considered was himself.