Novak Djokovic has legitimate options, but they are all limited.

Novak Djokovic’s lawyers said on Friday night that they would oppose the Australian Immigration Minister’s decision to cancel his visa again, but experts say he will find it far more difficult than last time. First trial in court.

According to Mary Anne Kenny, an associate professor, if he doesn’t want to simply comply with the cancellation and leave the country, he will have to apply for a court order to prevent Australian authorities from deporting him while His attorneys filed the challenge. Law at Murdoch University.

That may allow him to stay in the country, but he will most likely be held in immigration detention, where he is held for five days before his first court appearance.

However, he can apply to the government for a bridging visa so he won’t be detained due to immigration and continues to play tennis. But according to Daniel Estrin, an immigration lawyer, Djokovic is unlikely to be granted such a visa because he will be subject to a condition of not being able to work. Then entry into the Australian Open which starts on Monday will see him disqualified.

But because Hawke’s powers are so broad, Estrin and Kenny said Djokovic will find it significantly more difficult than on the first appeal.

The minister only needs to demonstrate that Djokovic could be a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community, Estrin said. It’s a very low threshold – “anyone can be a risk to the Australian community if you look at it broadly” – making it extremely difficult for Djokovic to argue his case, he added. .

Instead, Djokovic will need to prove that Hawke committed a “fault of authority” or applied the wrong law, Estrin said – a much higher legal threshold.

Djokovic’s lawyers will not be allowed to add to his record or argue that he should be allowed into Australia, Estrin said, meaning that, as in his first appeal, he will have to succeed on litigation basis.

“The court did not consider whether the minister made the right decision,” Estrin said. “The court will only consider whether the minister has committed some error of law.”