1511806 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3390

1511806 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3390 (3 March 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1511806

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Iraq

MEMBER:Sue Raymond

DATE:3 March 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

Statement made on 03 March 2016 at 1:09pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made [in] August 2015, by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that she determined that there was non-compliance by the visa holder with section 101 of the Migration Act, namely, subsection 101 (b) of the Act. The delegate considered the response from the applicant’s representative, had regard to certain prescribed circumstances and determined that the visa should be cancelled. The details in relation to the notice, and decision relating to the cancellation, are further discussed below.

3. The issues in the present case are whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal [on] 9 February 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent who also attended the hearing. The Tribunal records its gratitude for the quality and detail of the representative’s submissions.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should set aside.

   Background

7. The following information about the applicant’s immigration history is summarised and drawn from the written submission of the applicant’s representative dated 8 February 2016:

8. The applicant is a [age]-year-old Iraqi citizen born on [date] in Kerbala (also referred to in the documentation as Karbala), Iraq. The applicant’s parents and [siblings] were also born in Kerbala, Iraq.

9. [The applicant] entered Australia [in] March 2008 as the holder of a [temporary] visa. [In] April 2008 the applicant lodged a protection visa application in Australia. [In] June 2009, the Department of Immigration granted the applicant a protection visa. [The protection visa was granted on the basis that [the applicant] was owed protection obligations for the purpose of section 36 of the Migration Act and met the prescribed regulations for the grant of a Protection (Class XA) subclass 866 visa. The applicant had claimed protection if he was forced to return to Iraq]

10. [In] August 2009 the applicant travelled to [Country 1]. In about September 2009 the applicant travelled from [Country 1] to Baghdad, Iraq. The applicant spent a week in [Country 1] in December 2009.

11. At some time around January 2010, the applicant accepted a [job] positionat the Erbil office of a [company]. The only way for Iraqi nationals (from outside the Kurdistan region) to internally relocate to the Kurdistan region was to obtain an appropriate entry card. Due to [the applicant] being sponsored by an employer, the applicant was able to obtain a work card which permitted him entry to the Kurdistan region. In addition to working with that employer, he free-lanced as [occupation]. While the applicant was in Erbil, he travelled to Baghdad approximately once every two weeks to visit his parents. The applicant’s parents did not have the necessary entry cards to allow them entry into the Kurdistan region and were not able to accompany him there.

12. On, or around [date] June 2010, the applicant met [Ms A] in Erbil, Iraq. The applicant married [Ms A] in Baghdad [in] October 2010. [Ms A] was separated from her previous partner and had one child from the previous relationship.

13. The applicant returned to Australia [in] March 2011.

14. Approximately a week later [in] March 2011 the applicant entered Iraq. During the period August 2011 to December 2011 the applicant travelled to [Country 2] on two separate occasions for a holiday.

15. [In] the applicant’s wife gave birth to their [child]. The applicant’s wife lodged an application for a Partner (Provisional)(Class UF)(subclass 309)/Partner (Migrant)(Class BC)(subclass 100) visa (Partner visa) [in] December 2012.

16. [In] December 2012 the applicant travelled to [Country 2] to assist his father in repatriating his mother’s body to the family cemetery in Kerbala. The applicant returned to Baghdad, Iraq  and shortly thereafter travelled to Kerbala to attend his mother’s burial.

17. The applicant returned to Australia [in] February 2013. He has not returned to Iraq since [February] 2013. In August 2013 the applicant has travelled to [Country 2] to see his wife and [children] and in May 2014 he travelled to [country] to see his wife and [children].

18. Consequently, between September 2009 and February 2013 (other than a period of time from [date] to [date] March 2011) the applicant was out of Australia, mostly in Iraq.

19. Against the backdrop of the applicant’s travel to Iraq, and information contained in the documentation for the spouse visa application lodged by the applicant’s wife, [Ms A], a delegate of the Department considered, and then cancelled, the applicant’s protection visa.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

20. Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.

21. The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise.   Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision and marked as Annexure A.

    Did the notice comply with the requirements in s.107? 

22. The first issue is whether the notice issued by the Minister’s delegate complied with s.107 of the Act.  No specific issue was taken by the applicant’s representative, with the validity of the notice of intention to consider cancellation [NOICC]. However, the Tribunal takes into account matters raised generally by the representative about the content of the notice, in the Tribunal’s consideration as to the validity of the notice. Given the significance of the notice, it is attached to these reasons, as Annexure B to this decision.

23. The delegate indicated that she considered that non-compliance with section 101 (b) has occurred in the “following instance”. What is set out thereunder is information contained in a protection visa application, a submission of the applicant’s then migration agent and information contained in a sponsorship form in respect of the applicant’s wife’s partner visa.

    ·The delegate set out questions 40 to 45 and 67 and the related answers to those questions, which were contained in the protection visa application, form 866C. Essentially, those questions relate to seeking protection in Australia so that the applicant did not have to go back to Iraq; recounting the reasons for him leaving the country and his fears about returning to that country. It also encompassed whether he will receive protection from the authorities of that country. Question 67 is a declaration of the applicant that the information the applicant supplied with part C of form 866 is “complete, correct and up to date in every detail.”

    ·There is also a reference to a submission by the applicant’s migration agent in the notice.

    ·Further information is referred to, which was contained in the sponsorship application for a partner visa form 40 SP. The notice sets out the questions and answers as follows: 9, 14, 35 and 57 of the sponsorship form. Essentially the information relates to the applicant meeting his partner in Erbil, Iraq, and marrying in Baghdad. An answer also indicates that the applicant had not been in paid employment during the last two years.

    ·The information referred to a statement of the applicant dated [in] March 2013 which confirmed that he met his spouse in June 2010 in northern Iraq; that he had a [child] on [date] and that he worked as [occupation] for a company, during his stay in Iraq.

    ·In the notice, the delegate referred to the partner visa application form in which the applicant’s spouse confirmed the information that he had provided and also set out the question and answer relating to question 70 on that partner application form.

24. After the recitation of that information and the reference to the attachments containing the information, the delegate stated the following as the basis for the non-compliance:

    “[Ms A]’s [the applicant’s wife] and your answers as stated above, together with checks of Departmental databases have confirmed that you have travelled to Iraq, the country you feared persecution and sought protection from, on a number of occasions, the earliest being in September 2009, three months after the grant of your Protection visa, where you spent approximately two years. You also spent a further two years in Iraq from [March] 2011 to [February] 2013. A copy of your Iraqi passport number… which you provided to the Australian Embassy in [country] [in] July 2014, confirms your numerous entries and exits into Iraq from [September] 2009.

    Therefore, based on the material presently before me, I consider that you did not comply with s101(b) of the Act.

    Furthermore, given the length of your stay in Iraq since the grant of your Protection visa, the fact that you have established a business there and work there, and that you have used your Iraqi passport to enter Iraq legally, leads me to conclude that you have re-availed yourself of the protection of Iraq, your country of origin”.

25. The sufficiency of notification is to be tested by reference to the statutory purpose. That is, it must be sufficient to fairly inform the visa holder of the basis upon which cancellation is being considered so that the visa holder is adequately equipped to provide such relevant information as may be available and to make such submissions as may be open.

26. The Tribunal notes that the delegate refers to the concept of re-availment in the last  paragraph of paragraph [24] above. Re-availment implies that refugee status existed at some earlier time. The reference to the concept of re-availment does not necessarily suggest that the answers were incorrect at the relevant time.

27. By virtue of the wording of section 101, the Tribunal determines that the ‘relevant time’ in which the Tribunal must assess whether there is non-compliance is at the time of lodgement of the visa application form [but noting the time frame which may arise if information was given or provided as described in section 99 of the Act]. The Tribunal notes that section 99 of the Act provides an expanded definition to include certain information given or provided, and further that such information is taken to be an answer to a question in the non-citizen’s application form, for the purpose of section 101(b). In this case, the alleged incorrect answers are in the Form 866C which is a part of the application form. The Tribunal notes that the obligation of a non-citizen to provide correct answers continues up until the grant of the visa, but that continuing obligation is under another provision of the Act. Section 104 of the Act imposes obligations on a non-citizen in the event that a change of circumstances occurs so that an answer is incorrect in those changed circumstances. In such circumstances the non-citizen must advise an officer in writing of the changed circumstances up until [relevantly] the grant of the visa. However a breach of section 101 has been alleged, not a breach of section 104 of the Act.

28. The reference to re-availment in the NOICC casts some doubt on the asserted non-compliance at the relevant time. The Notice does not provide any nexus between the alleged incorrect statements and the claimed fear at the time of the application.  However, it is also tolerably clear that the notice was referring to the re-availment as evidence of the incorrectness of the answers at the relevant time, as has been more clearly stated in the departmental decision record. The Tribunal has reservations about the validity of the NOICC. Despite dome reservations about the validity of the notice, the Tribunal has ultimately concluded that the nature of the non-compliance is sufficiently particularised for the applicant to respond to it. The Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.

    Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?

29. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s.107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with section 101(b) referred to in the s.107 notice as set out in the NOICC annexed to this decision.

30. In the decision record the delegate outlined her reasons for deciding that the visa holder did not comply with section 101 of the Act. She said as follows:

    “The visa holder has deliberately deceived the Department in relation to his return to Iraq and his fear of returning to Iraq. I have concerns that he has continued to make false declarations to the Department even after he was given the opportunity to provide the correct information.

    In his submission to the Department in support of his application for a protection visa, the visa holder claims that following an attack on their house by the Almadhi army, his father contacted him in Australia and advised him not to return to Iraq.

    In his response stated [date] September 2014, [Mr B] [who then represented the applicant] states:

    “But within months he received pleas from his parents. [A number] of their [children] had fled from Iraq, leaving them with only one [child] who had fallen ill.

    Reluctantly and fearfully he therefore went back to Iraq in September 2009 to shoulder his Iraqi socio-cultural family obligation and responsibility to look after his parents.”

    I find it hard to accept that the visa holder’s parents would plead with him to return to Iraq, the country they advised him not to return to and that he fled from as he feared for his life, and place his life at risk if indeed it was a risk given the above factors. Furthermore, I find it hard to understand why the visa holder’s parents would plead with him to return to Iraq and not ask their eldest [son] who is also in Australia and an Australian citizen and who is the eldest son is expected to shoulder the family responsibility as per the ‘socio-cultural family obligation and responsibility’ mentioned by [Mr B] and as per the Islamic culture.

    Furthermore, during his interview with the Department [in] April 2015, the visa holder provided a different explanation as to why he returned to Iraq, to the one provided above by [Mr B]. He claimed during his interview with the Department that he decided to return to Iraq due to his mother suffering from depression.

    The conflicting information provided by the visa holder, has led me to have concerns about his credibility.

    Given the length of the visa holder’s stay in Iraq since the grant of his Protection visa, the fact that he worked there and that he has used his Iraqi passport to enter Iraq legally, leads me to conclude that he has re-availed himself of the protection of Iraq, his country of origin, and where I conclude, he never had any fear for his life or of persecution.

    Based on the evidence above, I am satisfied that the visa holder provided incorrect information to the Department. I find, therefore, that the visa holder did not comply with section 101 of the Migration Act.”

31. The Tribunal is mindful that in cancellation cases, the existence of facts which ground the exercise of the statutory power, the obligation to establish those facts is on the Minister (or on review, the Tribunal). There is no obligation on the visa holder to establish that the visa should not be cancelled. The Tribunal is also mindful that it must decide whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice. Having regard to the terms of the notice, is the Tribunal satisfied that there are no incorrect answers given or provided on the visa application form?[1]  In the present case the delegate has alleged that the applicant incorrectly answered questions 40 to 45 and 67 of his protection visa application form 866C. At hearing the applicant reiterated that the answers were correct.

    Submissions of the representative as to the ‘incorrectness’ of information

    [1] And noting that section 99 of the Act provides a broader scope of information which may fall within section 101(b) of the Act

32. In the submissions of the representative, at paragraphs 50 to 52, the representative referred to the section 107 notice. He said that the delegate alleged that the fact that the applicant travelled to Iraq after the grant of this protection visa led her to consider that he answered question 40 incorrectly. The representative further stated, “[h]owever, regardless of the Applicant’s international movements after the PV grant, it was not incorrect for him to state at either the time of the application or decision that he was seeking to engage Australia’s protection obligations so that he did not need to return to Iraq.” The representative submits that in relation to question 40, the ground for cancellation is not made out.

33. In the submissions of the representative, at paragraphs 53-62, he addressed the issue of the alleged incorrectness of answers to questions 41-45 of Form 866C. The answers to the questions were contained in an annexed statement. The representative also referred to a submission which it is asserted related to a person other than the applicant. The representative asserted that it should not form any part of the section 107 notice. The Tribunal accepts the submission in that regard. The material should not form any basis of the NOICC.

34. The representative, referring to the re-availment paragraph of the NOICC, indicated that the delegate’s comments may be relevant to an assessment of whether the applicant falls within the cessation provisions contained in the Refugees Convention, such as under Article 1C. He stated that Article 1C is not relevant to the current assessment of section 101 non-compliance. The footnote to the submission asserted that the use of the term “re-availed” only bolsters the applicant’s argument that he was a refugee at the time of his protection visa application and decision. The representative asserted that the individual would need to be a ‘refugee’ prior to the voluntary re-availment of protection. He cited Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62, Gaudron J at [16].

35. The representative noted that, other than referring to the applicant’s return to and length of stay in Iraq after the grant of his protection visa, the section 107 notice does not expressly identify or particularise the nexus between these circumstances and the alleged non-compliance under section 101. The submissions then set out in table form the alleged incorrect answers and the absence of evidence of non-compliance in the section 107 notice. The representative submitted that there was no evidence put forward by the delegate and identified in the section 107 notice to suggest that questions 41-45 are incorrect and consequently, the ground for cancellation is not made out. As none of the answers are incorrect, the representative submitted that the declaration at question 67 is correct.

1. The Tribunal notes that it may not always be necessary to identify, with precision, particular answers that are incorrect. In the case of Gido-Christian[2], which related to an application for a partner visa, the issue related to the genuineness of the applicant’s spousal relationship. In that case the section 107 notice identified the incorrect ‘answers’ as including the applicant’s declaration that she ‘and that application was lodged on the basis that she was in a genuine and continuing marital relationship with her sponsor’. The Court held that when read in a commonsense way, the notice provided sufficient information and satisfactorily complied with the legislative requirements. His Honour stated that this was not a case where a specific incorrect answer needed to be established when dealing with what could only be described as a straightforward and significant notion, namely the genuineness of the relationship.

   [2] Gido-Christian v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2007] FMCA 825

2. However, in this case specific answers were nominated in the NOICC. However, there is no readily identifiable incorrect fact or circumstance. In short, there is no evidence of factual incorrectness underpinning the asserted fear of the applicant in his protection visa application form. The incorrectness is essentially as to the applicant’s fear of persecution in Iraq and is asserted by reference to certain actions of the applicant returning to Iraq and his conduct in that country. Essentially, to find that there is non-compliance the Tribunal would need to find that the applicant did not hold the requisite fear at the time of lodgement of his protection visa application.

3. The NOICC and the departmental decision record refer to the re-availment of the protection of Iraq. The Refugee Convention provisions in Article 1C are directed at persons who, having once required Convention protection, no longer do so. Article 1C(4) deals with voluntary re-establishment of a person in the country where the persecution was feared. Re-establishment in such circumstances is indicative that a refugee no longer seeks protection outside their country of origin. Article 1C(4) is not a specific basis for cancellation in section 101(b). Whilst the concept of re-availment is mentioned in the NOICC and the decision record, of itself, it cannot be a basis for cancellation under section101(b). The decision record also refers to re-availment but then also asserts incorrectness of the statements (which incorrectness is not specifically asserted in the NOICC).

4. In the circumstances of this case there is arguably re-availment contemplated by Article 1C(4). However, the notion of re-availment is underpinned by acceptance of refugee status at some earlier point of time.

5. In essence, the cancellation in this case is on a basis which does not sit easily with the notion of “incorrect information”. In contrast, the Tribunal notes the case of Rezaei v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[3] which also dealt with cancellation of a protection visa. In that case the cancellation was made under section 128 of the Act. The applicant was outside of Australia and a ground under section 116 of the Act was established. Subsection (1)(a) of that provision referred to “any circumstances which permitted the grant of the visa no longer exist.” The difference in the wording of the provisions is material. In the current case there has to be incorrect answers at the relevant time whereas the section 116 provision effectively contemplates a change in circumstances. In this case the visa has been cancelled under section 109 of the Act on the basis of incorrect answers being given or provided, rather than circumstances no longer in existence.

   [3] [2001] FCA 1294

6. Whilst there may be some discrepancies in information given by or on behalf of the applicant, for example as to what caused him to return to Iraq-his former representative suggested his parents pleaded with him and his own evidence which appeared to be borne of concern for his parents (rather than a direct plea by them) and issues around the work he undertook and for whom in Iraq, those matters, of themselves, do not amount to non-compliance. Any issues as to credibility of the applicant’s information and evidence is not such as to allow the Tribunal to conclude that there has been a breach of section 101(b).

7. Mindful that there is no obligation on the applicant to establish that the visa should not be cancelled, the Tribunal accepts the following evidence which, in its view, does not suggest incorrectness of the applicant’s answers:

   ·The applicant did not initially return to Iraq when he left Australia in August 2009, but went to [Country 1]. It is asserted that the outgoing passenger card[4] indicated an absence of one to two months. His representative indicated that he had a return ticket to Australia. At that time he travelled on his Australian travel document and not his Iraqi passport. It was only once he had seen his mother in [Country 1], realised her condition was considerably worse than he had feared, that he made the decision to return to Iraq travelling on his Iraqi passport. He did not leave Australia intending to return to Iraq.

   ·After the death of his mother he has not returned to Iraq. His wife and [child] remain there but he has met them in countries other than Iraq since leaving Iraq in 2013.

   [4] Whilst the card was not before the Tribunal, it accepts the representative’s assertion in this regard

8. The Tribunal also notes the International Treaties Obligations Assessment (IOTA), which was undertaken in July 2015[5], in relation to the proposed cancellation of [the applicant]’s visa. Significantly, the assessing officer accepted that [the applicant] is Shia and also accepted that [the applicant] may have been imputed with the political opinion of being opposed to Shia militias such as the Sadrist movement in 2008 as he was working for the Iraqi government. The assessing officer did not find it credible that he would be of interest to the Sadrist militia/movement if he was to return to Iraq and did not find it credible that he would be required to take up arms and fight against ISIS as a result of a fatwa declared in June 2014. The Tribunal places considerable weight on the IOTA which does not indicate that there is no foundation to the applicant’s asserted fear of persecution at the time of the visa application. It does indicate that the situation in Iraq and the role of the Sadrist movement has changed significantly since 2008. It casts doubt on the situation at the time of the assessment, but not specifically at the time of the visa application.

   [5] Folios 139-146 of departmental file [number]

9. In order to affirm the decision the Tribunal must be positively satisfied of the incorrectness of the answers to questions nominated in the NOICC. The Tribunal is not so satisfied. The evidence is not such that it can be established positively that the answers were incorrect at time of lodgement of the protection visa application.

10. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was no non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. It follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise. 

    DECISION

    The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

    Sue Raymond

    
    

    Senior Member

    ANNEXURE A – Relevant Extracts from the Migration Act 1958:

    5Interpretation

    (1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

    bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

    (a)    purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

    (b)    is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

    (c)    was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

    97Interpretation

    In this Subdivision:

    application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.

    passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).

    Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).

    98Completion of visa application

    A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.

    99Information is answer

    Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.

    100Incorrect answers

    For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.

    101Visa applications to be correct

    A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:

    (a)all questions on it are answered; and

    (b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.

    107Notice of incorrect applications

    (1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:

    (a)    giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and

    (b)    stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:

    (i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:

    (A)shows that there was compliance; and

    (B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or

    (ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:

    (A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and

    (B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and

    (c)    stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:

    (i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or

    (ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or

    (iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and

    (d)    setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and

    (e) informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and

    (f)     requiring the holder:

    (i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and

    (ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.

    (1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:

    (a)    in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or

    (b)    otherwise—14 days.

    (1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:

    (a)    visas of a stated class; or

    (b)    visa holders in stated circumstances; or

    (c)    visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or

    (d)    visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.

    (2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.

    ANNEXURE B-NOICC-Pages 1-4

    [Department’s Notice to Cancel deleted]

    `