Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef will appeal the Australian government's decision to revoke his visa, his lawyer said, with experts believing that the move to invoke immigration laws to continue detaining him can be challenged on grounds of "bias" and "irrelevant considerations."
Lawyer Peter Russo said the immigration minister's decision to revoke his client's visa after being granted bail by a court hearing into charges that he supported a terrorist organisation was a direct contravention to assurance by federal police last week that no action was proposed to be taken in respect of immigration matters.
"We have examined the minister's decision and believe it is reviewable through an application to the federal court, which can be considered on a limited basis," Russo said.
"The only association identified by the Federal police, as part of their criminal allegation, is the giving of a SIM card. The highest the allegations put was that he was reckless in that respect," Russo was quoted as saying by the media.
The appeal will be filed in Brisbane.
"We are very concerned at the minister's actions. It is as if the Commonwealth put everything they had before the umpire and then, not liking her decision, took the game into their own hands," Russo lamented.
Human rights lawyer Greg Barns, a former adviser to the government, said the decision to revoke Haneef's visa "looks bad."
"Andrews's decision can be challenged on the grounds of bias or taking into account irrelevant considerations in making his decision -- this includes political considerations," he said.
Barns said he doubted Andrews's decision to cancel the visa could be considered "reasonable" -- the terminology required under the Migration Act.
"It looks as though the commonwealth has sought to get around their failure in Brisbane this morning to stop Haneef from getting bail, by using the Migration Act to achieve this end," he said.
"Andrews could have made a decision on Haneef when he was charged over the weekend - why wait until now?" he said.
"It is doubtful that Andrews's decision is reasonable as he suggests, given the weakness of the case against Haneef and that he is an innocent man," he said.
Senior University of NSW constitutional law lecturer Andrew Lynch also predicted Haneef would have a case to appeal against the decision.
He doubted the government was basing its decision on any extra information, saying police would have used all the evidence in their unsuccessful application for Haneef's bail to be refused.
The decision to cancel Haneef's visa seemed to be based on him being a relative of men implicated in the UK terrorism attacks, which was "unsatisfactory," he said.
And he rejected Andrews's assertions that the decision to cancel his visa was not prejudging Haneef's guilt or innocence.
"He's saying that Haneef's visa's cancelled because he's caught up in this, whereas the bail was granted because of a judicial finding that it wasn't," Lynch told Sky News.