Gazan deemed ‘security risk’ demands to know why visa was cancelled

Hosni Imad, who has family in Australia, is trying to determine why his visitor visa was cancelled after a judge was handed a locked bag containing a statement from the second-in-charge at ASIO.

Home Affairs granted Hosni Imad, his wife and his daughter a visitor visa last November, after which they travelled to Cairo from Gaza through the Rafah crossing. Picture: AFP

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

A Gazan with family in Australia says he wants to know why his visitor visa was cancelled due to being a “security risk”, after a judge was handed a locked bag with a statement from the second-in-charge at ASIO and the government was told it would not need to give him details about the cancellation.

Hosni Imad, 45, told the Federal Court that with the “limited nature of information” it would be difficult to mount a case to challenge the visa cancellation, which “may be his only way to survive” as he remains stuck in Egypt. His legal team confirmed he would appeal the decision to the Full Court.

Mr Imad is the second Gazan known to The Australian challenging the cancellation of a visitor visa in the Federal Court following an adverse security assessment. The other is 68 year-old Fatma Almassri, who has six children, all Australian citizens, living in Australia.

Australia has approved 3000 visas for Gazans since Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack, including more than 2560 tourist visas, which far exceeds the numbers accepted by the nation’s Five Eyes allies.

Home Affairs granted Mr Imad, his wife and his daughter a visitor visa on November 12, 2023, after which they travelled to Cairo from Gaza through the Rafah crossing with a plan to fly to Australia to live with his brother, who is an Australian citizen. His wife, daughter, and mother, arrived in Australia in early 2024, and have since applied for protection visas.

In March, Mr Imad’s visa was cancelled after the Director-General of Security Mike Burgess concluded he was “directly or indirectly, a risk to security”. A court heard that he remains “stranded in Cairo” and has “no right to reside or work or any means of providing for himself”.

In July, Mr Burgess under court orders produced 132 documents related to its security assessment of Mr Imad, parts of which were deemed “SECRET”. The Director-General made a claim of public interest immunity over some of the papers - a legal principal which says it would be against the public interest if certain information was made public.

According to the redacted documents, seen by The Australian, Mr Imad first came to ASIO’s attention in December 2023 before his case was referred to the intelligence agency in February for a complex assessment. The circumstances around the cancellation are redacted, but note there is an “unacceptable risk Mr Imad would promote or facilitate acts of PMV (Politically Motivated Violence) in Australia”.

Mr Imad’s wife was interviewed by ASIO in January and told them “she and Mr Imad had never had any engagement with Hamas and that her and her family were peaceful and did not like war”.

In a sworn statement provided to the court, Deputy Director-General of Security at ASIO, Michael Noyes, said there were “significant national security implications” if documents claimed under public interest immunity “were to be disclosed” including communications with foreign partner agencies and references to operational methodology.

Ahead of an August hearing, a further confidential statement by Mr Noyes was delivered to Justice Helen Rofe in a locked bag for inspection on a “read and return” basis.

It did not include any information about the secret matters, yet after reading both documents by Mr Noyes, Justice Rofe accepted the claims of public interest immunity were “not baseless or lightly made”.

“Mr Noyes plainly has extensive experience in the areas of intelligence gathering, counter-terrorism and counterespionage,” she said.

Mr Imad argued that to have procedural fairness, he needed “some indication … to understand the basis of the adverse assessment”.

But Justice Helen Rofe said that while the personal circumstances of the applicant may be dire, and accepted refusing the information meant his appeal would likely fail, the “interest in the open administration of justice does not outweigh the clear prejudice to national security that would be occasioned by disclosure of the documents and the information in them.”

In response to The Australian’s questions, Dushan Nikolic, Partner at Carina Ford Immigration Lawyer, confirmed that Mr Imad was appealing the decision, but given the ongoing appeal was unable to comment any further.