The draw for the Australian Open is scheduled to take place this evening and, despite the drama surrounding Novak Djokovic from the past week, the reigning champion is seeded number one in the men's competition.
Immigration Minister Alex Hawke has still not made a decision on whether to cancel the visa of the nine-time Australian Open winner, with just four days until the start of the tournament.
The world's best tennis players are gathered to challenge the Serb's supremacy at Rod Laver Arena, but have been reticent in their commentary during their peer's prolonged visa saga.
World number two Daniil Medvedev, who Djokovic defeated in last year's Australian Open final, took a neutral stance in an interview with Tennis Majors.
"If he has an exemption, well, [he] should be here. If something was wrong with the papers and they didn't let him in, well, that's what happens sometimes," Medvedev said.
Rafael Nadal was also diplomatic when asked about Djokovic during an interview with Spanish radio station Onda Cero on Monday.
"Whether or not I agree with Djokovic on some things, justice has spoken and has said that he has the right to participate in the Australian Open," Nadal said.
American John Isner was more outspoken with his thoughts earlier this week, throwing his full support behind Djokovic.
"What Novak is going through right now is not right. There's no justification for the treatment he's receiving," the men's world number 23 said in a tweet.
"He followed the rules, was allowed to enter Australia, and now he's being detained against his own will. This is such a shame."
Former men's world number one Andy Murray raised questions about Djokovic's whereabouts in the preceding fortnight, following revelations about the Serb's December itinerary and troubles with his documentation.
Djokovic blames misinformation and human error in latest revelations
Djokovic was put on the back foot after social media posts revealed he had been active in the community while infected with COVID-19.
He took to Instagram to declare the spread of "misinformation" and called a decision to conduct an interview with French magazine L'Equipe while knowingly positive with COVID-19 "an error of judgement".
Djokovic also had to return serve after it emerged that he had wrongly declared his travel history on documents before entering Australia.
The Serbian had been in both Belgrade and Spain in the two weeks prior to his arrival in Melbourne, but did not declare that he had travelled abroad.
Djokovic blamed his support team, stating his agent made an "administrative mistake" when filling out the travel declaration.
However, leading Australian immigration law specialist Maria Jockel said human error on the part of Djokovic's staff did not preclude him from responsibility.
"Section 98 of the Migration Act says it doesn't matter who filled it in or how, he's personally responsible for it," Ms Jockel said.
"That admission, in itself, would in most circumstances mean that he made a false and misleading statement on his declaration, which is a serious offence.
Ms Jockel believes Judge Anthony Kelly took an "exceedingly narrow view" when making his decision to quash Djokovic's visa cancellation on Monday and did not take into account the circumstances surrounding the Serb's visa being granted nor his entry into the country.
"I have not seen any definitive evidence that he actually got an exemption that met the Commonwealth requirements," she said.
"The conundrum is that he's now been allowed to have his visa reinstated on very, very narrow grounds and that there may be other issues coming to light which may cast a different perspective because it enlivens different aspects of Australia’s immigration laws."
While unreasonable treatment of Djokovic at the airport led to his visa cancellation being quashed, she noted, these new issues might provide the federal government with the justification it needs to cancel Djokovic's visa.
What happens if Djokovic's visa is cancelled?
Should Immigration Minister Alex Hawke choose to exercise his powers and cancel Djokovic's visa, the world number one men's tennis player would be notified of the decision and given the chance to make representations on the revocation.
If no representations were made, Djokovic would then be considered to be in Australia unlawfully and would need to make arrangements to leave Australia or he would be deported.
While a cancelled visa would carry steep consequences, including a potential three-year ban on applying for a new temporary visa — as set out in Public Interest Criterion 4013 — Djokovic could be allowed back into the country under special circumstances.
If Djokovic were to voluntarily leave Australia after having his visa cancelled, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke, or his delegates, might decide to grant him a new visa and waive Public Interest Criterion 4013.
"In order to waive that criterion, there would have to be compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia," Ms Jockel said.
Whether Djokovic's prodigious talents on the tennis court — and his future presence at the Australian Open — would be considered in the national interest is a decision for the Immigration Minister.
Mr Hawke is yet to announce any decision on Djokovic's current visa but, when he does, it's sure to incite a media frenzy regardless of the outcome.
"The Minister and the people that govern us now require the wisdom of Solomon because, whichever way you go, controversy is still part of the Djokovic saga," Ms Jockel said.
.jpg?w=600)
