Non Footy Chat Thread II

[I'm a loser baby...]

no one knows - or cares - they just want a pound of flesh

Because deep down they know that it's our own leaders that have screwed us, and we let it happen. Rather than accept that we need everyone else to suffer.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Misery loves company.

 

[Avenger]

Okay but what's the penalty for ticking that box incorrectly?

Exactly. Does he pay the ultimate price for that and get deported and be banned entering the country again for 3 years? Does that appear extreme after a Federal Court Judge basically stated in his summing up that he was stitched up.

And the failure of him isolating in Serbia doesn't bare any weight on what happens here, especially legally. It's just put out there to demonize him and sway public opinion against him.

So let's see what Section 133 involves:

3) The Minister may cancel a visa held by a person if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under section 116 exists; and

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

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 133C Minister's personal powers to cancel visas on section 116 grounds

classic.austlii.edu.au

The Public Interest Criterion (PIC)4001 is a section of the Migration Act 1958, that ensures that any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia temporarily or permanently must satisfy the character requirement as set out in the Migration Act.

So now what do we define as being in the public interest:

The Public Interest Criterion (PIC)4001 is a section of the Migration Act 1958, that ensures that any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia temporarily or permanently must satisfy the character requirement as set out in the Migration Act.

When does an applicant not pass the character test?

The act sets out that an applicant will not pass the character test if any of the below applies:

• They have a substantial criminal record
• they have been convicted of an offence while in immigration detention, escape from immigration detention, or been convicted of an offence of escaping from immigration detention
• in regards to the persons past and present general criminal conduct, the person is judged not to be of good character
• there is a significant risk that the person will engage in criminal conduct such as harrasing, molesting, intimidating, or stalking another person, or vilifying, inciting discord against a segment of the Australian community, or the general Australian community, or the person represents a danger to the Australian community, or a segment of that community.

What is the Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 ? – Ethos Migration Lawyers

ethosmigration.com.au

NOW PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHICH OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA IS APPLICABLE TO NOVAK WHERE IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DEPORT HIM ?

Is that the law or am I being stupid?

@Gary Gutful
@Suitman
@Gronk

 

[Gary Gutful]

Exactly. Does he pay the ultimate price for that and get deported and be banned entering the country again for 3 years? Does that appear extreme after a Federal Court Judge basically stated in his summing up that he was stitched up.

And the failure of him isolating in Serbia doesn't bare any weight on what happens here, especially legally. It's just put out there to demonize him and sway public opinion against him.

So let's see what Section 133 involves:

3) The Minister may cancel a visa held by a person if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under section 116 exists; and

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

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 133C Minister's personal powers to cancel visas on section 116 grounds

classic.austlii.edu.au

The Public Interest Criterion (PIC)4001 is a section of the Migration Act 1958, that ensures that any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia temporarily or permanently must satisfy the character requirement as set out in the Migration Act.

So now what do we define as being in the public interest:

The Public Interest Criterion (PIC)4001 is a section of the Migration Act 1958, that ensures that any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia temporarily or permanently must satisfy the character requirement as set out in the Migration Act.

When does an applicant not pass the character test?

The act sets out that an applicant will not pass the character test if any of the below applies:

• They have a substantial criminal record
• they have been convicted of an offence while in immigration detention, escape from immigration detention, or been convicted of an offence of escaping from immigration detention
• in regards to the persons past and present general criminal conduct, the person is judged not to be of good character
• there is a significant risk that the person will engage in criminal conduct such as harrasing, molesting, intimidating, or stalking another person, or vilifying, inciting discord against a segment of the Australian community, or the general Australian community, or the person represents a danger to the Australian community, or a segment of that community.

What is the Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 ? – Ethos Migration Lawyers

ethosmigration.com.au

NOW PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHICH OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA IS APPLICABLE TO NOVAK WHERE IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DEPORT HIM ?

Is that the law or am I being stupid?

@Gary Gutful
@Suitman
@Gronk

Why didn't you look at Section 116? I'm not an immigration lawyer but it seems more relevant than any of the public interest stuff.

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

.....blah blah blah

 

[Gary Gutful]

Because deep down they know that it's our own leaders that have screwed us, and we let it happen. Rather than accept that we need everyone else to suffer.

Our leaders have f**ked this one up like they always do, but from what I can see Team Novak hasn't really excelled either.

At this stage I couldn't give a shit whether he plays or not, but I'm not buying the narrative that he is a poor, hard done by victim just trying to do the right thing. His story doesn't really stack up and I personally believe he hasn't been truthful. Just my opinion of course, an opinion I have formed by looking at everything - not just the 'biased media' which has supposedly brain washed me.

And lets not forget Tennis Australia...what a pack of absolute amateurs. Last year was a debacle as well. If I was the ATP, I'd relegate the Aus Open to a Challenger Tour event.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Forget about the fact that Australia has no jurisdiction in what he did in Europe, that’s not the point. This is just about making sure Osama bin Djoković is arrested. Sensationalist journalism at its highest.

Immigration officials investigating Djokovic’s errors and COVID breaches

Australian immigration officials have widened their investigation into Novak Djokovic’s visa application to include his COVID breaches in Serbia and an incorrect entry form.

www.smh.com.au

If he had committed crimes overseas we would be able to refuse him entry on character grounds. Even if he never broke Australian law.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I really don't care all that much, but seriously, lying on your visa application is lying on your visa application.

If he stays, then that just says that's ok.

Do you reckon that's ok?

The Serbian presidente sided with our government. Rules are for everyone.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I've watched the tv show ... they confiscate your dried tiger penis products and give you a $200 fine

Wet tiger penis is where it's at.

 

[Bandwagon]

The Serbian presidente sided with our government. Rules are for everyone.

Except when they're not.

I don't think any of this debacle happens without the politics behind it, Novax woulda' normally have been waltzed through and few if any woulda really given a f**k.

 

[Bandwagon]

 

[hindy111]

no one knows - or cares - they just want a pound of flesh

Exactly. Does he pay the ultimate price for that and get deported and be banned entering the country again for 3 years? Does that appear extreme after a Federal Court Judge basically stated in his summing up that he was stitched up.

And the failure of him isolating in Serbia doesn't bare any weight on what happens here, especially legally. It's just put out there to demonize him and sway public opinion against him.

So let's see what Section 133 involves:

3) The Minister may cancel a visa held by a person if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under section 116 exists; and

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

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 133C Minister's personal powers to cancel visas on section 116 grounds

classic.austlii.edu.au

The Public Interest Criterion (PIC)4001 is a section of the Migration Act 1958, that ensures that any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia temporarily or permanently must satisfy the character requirement as set out in the Migration Act.

So now what do we define as being in the public interest:

The Public Interest Criterion (PIC)4001 is a section of the Migration Act 1958, that ensures that any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia temporarily or permanently must satisfy the character requirement as set out in the Migration Act.

When does an applicant not pass the character test?

The act sets out that an applicant will not pass the character test if any of the below applies:

• They have a substantial criminal record
• they have been convicted of an offence while in immigration detention, escape from immigration detention, or been convicted of an offence of escaping from immigration detention
• in regards to the persons past and present general criminal conduct, the person is judged not to be of good character
• there is a significant risk that the person will engage in criminal conduct such as harrasing, molesting, intimidating, or stalking another person, or vilifying, inciting discord against a segment of the Australian community, or the general Australian community, or the person represents a danger to the Australian community, or a segment of that community.

What is the Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 ? – Ethos Migration Lawyers

ethosmigration.com.au

NOW PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHICH OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA IS APPLICABLE TO NOVAK WHERE IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DEPORT HIM ?

Is that the law or am I being stupid?

@Gary Gutful
@Suitman
@Gronk

Gary's right. Section 116 is what you should be looking at.

 

[84 Baby]

Okay but what's the penalty for ticking that box incorrectly?

Shot into the sun

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Why not both?

 

[84 Baby]

Because deep down they know that it's our own leaders that have screwed us, and we let it happen. Rather than accept that we need everyone else to suffer.

So non-citizens should be allowed to enter because the government stuffed up?

 

[hindy111]

I'd prefer if he can play. I do not get involved in the politics and rules. I don't understand them enough to have an opinion with much weight.. I just like seeing the best of the best. And well he is the best.

 

[Gronk]

Exactly. Does he pay the ultimate price for that and get deported and be banned entering the country again for 3 years? Does that appear extreme after a Federal Court Judge basically stated in his summing up that he was stitched up.

And the failure of him isolating in Serbia doesn't bare any weight on what happens here, especially legally. It's just put out there to demonize him and sway public opinion against him.

So let's see what Section 133 involves:

3) The Minister may cancel a visa held by a person if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that a ground for cancelling the visa under section 116 exists; and

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

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 133C Minister's personal powers to cancel visas on section 116 grounds

classic.austlii.edu.au

The Public Interest Criterion (PIC)4001 is a section of the Migration Act 1958, that ensures that any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia temporarily or permanently must satisfy the character requirement as set out in the Migration Act.

So now what do we define as being in the public interest:

The Public Interest Criterion (PIC)4001 is a section of the Migration Act 1958, that ensures that any person wishing to visit, or migrate to Australia temporarily or permanently must satisfy the character requirement as set out in the Migration Act.

When does an applicant not pass the character test?

The act sets out that an applicant will not pass the character test if any of the below applies:

• They have a substantial criminal record
• they have been convicted of an offence while in immigration detention, escape from immigration detention, or been convicted of an offence of escaping from immigration detention
• in regards to the persons past and present general criminal conduct, the person is judged not to be of good character
• there is a significant risk that the person will engage in criminal conduct such as harrasing, molesting, intimidating, or stalking another person, or vilifying, inciting discord against a segment of the Australian community, or the general Australian community, or the person represents a danger to the Australian community, or a segment of that community.

What is the Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4001 ? – Ethos Migration Lawyers

ethosmigration.com.au

NOW PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHICH OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA IS APPLICABLE TO NOVAK WHERE IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DEPORT HIM ?

Is that the law or am I being stupid?

@Gary Gutful
@Suitman
@Gronk

You’re conflating a chinese lady from Yunnan province with dried fish that she failed to declare on her card and a biosecurity issue during a pandemic.

Evidenced by the initial cancellation of his visa, It is apparent that his story and documentation don’t stack up. I have no problems if he legitimately ticks all the boxes and he should be given fair opportunity to do so. However it’s ridiculous to suggest that anyone should be given special treatment when it comes to biosecurity PURELY because it then sets a precedent for others to jump on the #metoo queue and demand that they also be given the right to cross the border.

 

[Bandwagon]

Does anyone actually know what usually happens if you tick the wrong box, either deliberately or accidentally?

Does anyone actually believe that this is a case of just "ticking the wrong box"?

At the very least, the box that was "wrongly ticked", would have had the follow up of "if yes (or no) please provide details.

 

[Avenger]

Why didn't you look at Section 116? I'm not an immigration lawyer but it seems more relevant than any of the public interest stuff.

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

.....blah blah blah

This section is applicable when they are at immigration in no man’s land when they arrive. We have gone past this point. And the section you quoted talks about risk something that I have kept arguing about and you put shit on me saying that I’m stupid and that it’s irrelevant.

It’s all about risk. It’s not about ticking the wrong box or dancing shirtless in Serbia.

 

[Avenger]

Gary's right. Section 116 is what you should be looking at.

No he’s not the power rests with section 133 subsection 3. Both a and b must be met in the subsection.

 

[Avenger]

You’re conflating a chinese lady from Yunnan province with dried fish that she failed to declare on her card and a biosecurity issue during a pandemic.

Evidenced by the initial cancellation of his visa, It is apparent that his story and documentation don’t stack up. I have no problems if he legitimately ticks all the boxes and he should be given fair opportunity to do so. However it’s ridiculous to suggest that anyone should be given special treatment when it comes to biosecurity PURELY because it then sets a precedent for others to jump on the #metoo queue and demand that they also be given the right to cross the border.

You don’t know what the f**k you are talking about. The only thing we agree on is that ScoMo is a flog and that rakija is a good drink.