A Palestinian man faces being deported back to a war zone in Gaza after an Australian court found there was no error in revoking his visa due to suspected links with terrorist organisations.
Hosni Imad and his family received visitor visas in November 2023 through a federal government program granting assistance to those affected by the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.
In early 2024, his wife, mother and daughter were permitted to cross the border into Egypt and made their way to Australia where they now reside.
On March 1, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation issued an adverse security assessment to the immigration minister.
The spy agency suspected Mr Imad may pose a risk to Australian security because of associations with members of Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
"Mr Imad presents an unacceptable risk to Australia's security which would be mitigated by the cancellation of his Australian temporary visitor visa," the organisation wrote.
Three days later, the minister opted to do just that.
Suspicions that Mr Imad would pose a risk came despite his wife telling the spy agency during a January interview that her husband had no connections with Hamas and was a peaceful man who did not like war.
The painter was notified of the minister's decision not to revoke the cancellation of his visa on March 27 after he had already travelled to Egypt to make the journey to Australia.
A Federal Court challenge to this decision was launched in June, and was dismissed by a three-judge panel on Wednesday.
Justices Robert Bromwich, Tom Thawley and Yaseen Shariff found Mr Imad was not denied any procedural fairness in losing his visa.
There was no general legal requirement for the spy agency to notify individuals of adverse security assessments against them, the court found.
Notice was only required when the immigration minister decided not to revoke the cancellation, which was what occurred.
The spy agency also had no obligation to interview Mr Imad either at the Australian embassy in Cairo or by phone or videolink, the court found.
Finally, it did not have to inform his brother, mother or wife of suspicions he had links with terrorist organisations so they could then speak to intelligence officials or the government on his behalf.
"The circumstances confronting the applicant, ASIO ... and the minister were unique and occurring against the backdrop of significant dislocation of Palestinians in Gaza, raising significant concerns as to security," the judges wrote.
"In these circumstances, ASIO and the director-general were not required by the rules of procedural fairness to take the steps which the applicant contends ought to have been taken."
A decision by Justice Helen Rofe barring Mr Imad or his legal team from accessing documents relating to the spy agency's risk assessment was also upheld.
The court found that the documents contained sensitive material which would damage national security if released.
Michael Noyes, ASIO deputy director-general of security, previously told the court that the publication of sensitive details held in the report could lead to "mosaicking" where distinct pieces of information could be put together to form a coherent, comprehensive picture.
