德约科维奇律师团队提出了三个理由，这三个理由在 s 116(1)(e)面前都不堪一击，也就是只要s 116 合法，这些挑战的理由都站不住脚。
Department （could） cancel a visa under s 116(1)(e) in relation to COVID-19 if a visa holder’s presence 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”.
Ground 1—failure to consider the consequences of cancellation
Ground 2—not open to the Minister to be satisfied the presence of Mr Djokovic “is or may be” a relevant risk
Ground 3—unreasonableness and/or irrationality in regard to finding concerning Mr Djokovic’s “stance on vaccination” etc.
以下是我认为德约科维奇案子唯一可以赢的解法构想。引用 Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth 这个判例，直接挑战移民法S116, 认为移民法s116 (1)(e)违反澳洲宪法。
Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) had simply declared the Party guilty and had authorised the executive government to ‘declare’ individuals or groups of individuals. The validity of the law depended on the existence of a fact (a constitutional fact) which the law asserted to be a fact whether or not there actually was any factual connection between those bodies or persons and subversion.
Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) 是不是和移民法 s116很像？ “simply declared”, ” no existence of fact”(移民部长自己说，自己想就行）这样就影响到了澳洲宪法确立的三权分立的原则。 This, it has been said, is a textual reinforcement for Dixon J’s statement in Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth  HCA 5; (1951) 83 CLR 1 at 193 about the significance of the rule of law for the Constitution: Plaintiff S157 at . By virtue of s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), the terms of which follow s 75(v), this Court is placed in the same position as the High Court in this regard.