Australian immigration law and policy have often been criticised for inconsistency with international human rights standards. Their arbitrary character is demonstrated in one example from the Australian case law that spurred a global debate on the legitimacy of the public health measures against the COVID-19 pandemic. This is the case of the government's cancellation of the visa of the famous tennis player Novak Djokovic, who entered Australia to compete in the tennis tournament in January 2022. This government's denial interfered with his freedom not to follow public official recommendations and policies. This paper investigates the limits of the government's discretion to take emergency measures for public health protection analysing procedural and substantive aspects of decisions that have struck this famous tennis player. Proceeding from universally accepted theoretical stances on the rule of law and human rights it evaluates a legal basis, argumentation and legal consequences of the decisions of the Australian government and the Federal Court. Eventually, this case indicates that all such decisions may be justified by the public interest, although such unfavourable treatment of a foreigner can hardly be justified. In short, foreigners cannot rely upon guarantees of human rights and the rule of law, because of the ignorance of relevant international standards, vague immigration laws, a broad judicial interpretation of executive powers and a narrow judicial review.