The world No. 1's case to avoid deportation and potentially be free to contest this month's Australian Open has been laid out ahead of a hearing in the Federal Circuit Court on Monday.

The lawyers will argue Djokovic had permission to land in Australia and compete in the tournament, and border officials made a series of "jurisdictional errors" in cancelling his visa.

But there are question marks over the nine-time Australian Open champion's case, including the legal bearing of a document he is relying on to prove he had permission from the federal government to enter the country.

On the eve of the high-stakes hearing, media reports emerged that the federal government had tried unsuccessfully to have the case delayed for two days so it could have more time to prepare its arguments.

Lawyers for Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews were given up until 8pm on Sunday night to file their submission.

The 20-time Grand Slam champion has spent the weekend locked in immigration detention in Melbourne after his visa was cancelled upon arrival in Australia last week.

READ MORE

The decision was made because Djokovic had failed to provide "appropriate evidence" of a medical exemption to enter the country unvaccinated against COVID-19.

Czech tennis player Renata Voracova was deported over the weekend after her visa was cancelled in similar circumstances, while another tournament official left Australia voluntary following a Border Force investigation.

Documents filed in the Federal Circuit Court have confirmed that Djokovic sought an exemption from vaccine rules on the grounds he had "recorded" a positive rest for COVID-19 on December 16.

In a development which has sparked further public outrage, photos have emerged of the tennis star attending a children's tennis event without wearing a mask on the following day.

The question of whether a COVID-19 infection in the previous six months was grounds for a medical exemption has been at the heart of the Djokovic visa saga.

The Canberra Times last week reported that the federal government had twice warned Tennis Australia boss Craig Tiley that a recent infection would not meet the criteria.

The warnings, issued in two letters in November, were based on advice from Australia's expert panel on immunisation, known as ATAGI.

Despite this, court documents show Djokovic received a letter from Tennis Australia's chief medical officer on December 30 confirming he had been provided with a medical exemption to compete in the tournament, based on his recent positive case.

The exemption was issued through a process overseen by Tennis Australia and the Victorian government. It did not grant him entry into the country, which is a system run by the federal government.

In their court filings, Djokovic's lawyers argue that ATAGI's own published guidance does list a recent infection as grounds for an exemption.

The lawyers said the guidance left no "room for misinterpretation" that an infection within the past six months was a medical reason not be vaccinated.

"The [decision maker] radically and fundamentally, in a way that no reasonable decision maker could have done, misapplied that advice to Mr Djokovic's situation," the lawyers said.

The tennis star's lawyers said in addition to an approved travel visa and exemption to compete in the tournament, Djokovic had received notice from Home Affairs that his online travel declaration indicated he met the requirements for quarantine-free travel in Australia.

It was on the strength of these documents that Djokovic believed he was permitted to enter the country and defend his Australian Open crown.

However, federal government sources have pointed out that a declaration itself does not validate whether a passenger has a valid visa or travel exemption. Nor does it provide approvals for entry into Australia.

The travel declaration app also includes a link to information on what travelers must provide to prove a medical exemption.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: