1618298 (Migration)

[2018] AATA 4435

1618298 (Migration) [2018] AATA 4435 (31 August 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1618298

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:31 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa.

Statement made on 31 August 2018 at 10:25am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 572 (Vocational Education and Training Sector) – incorrect answers provided on application form – exclusion period for new visa applications – false identity used to obtain a migration outcome – failed to disclose previously unlawful status and removal from Australia – grounds for cancellation outweigh hardship caused – decision under review affirmed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether procedural defects in the s.107 notice is cause to automatically set aside the decision – procedural defects cured on review

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 107, 109, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 2.41, 2.55, Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4014

CASES

MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
MIMIA v Ahmed (2005) 143 FCR 314
SZEEM v MIAC [2005] FMCA 27

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the visa holder failed to comply with s.101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect answers on his TU-572 Student visa application. The delegate further determined to exercise her discretion to cancel the visa under s.109 of the Act. A breach of s.101 provided the basis on which the visa may have been cancelled under s.109.

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

4. The applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal on 28 August 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. No response was provided to the hearing invitation and the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal at the time and place scheduled. Whilst no contact was made with the Tribunal to advise why he was unable to attend the hearing, a submission was provided by the applicant’s migration agent in advance of the hearing.  This had been to respond to written information that had been put to the applicant pursuant to the procedural requirements of s.359A of the Act the day before the Tribunal had sent the invitation of the hearing to the applicant.

5. The Tribunal contacted the applicant’s migration agent after the applicant did not appear at the hearing to ask whether the applicant wished the Tribunal to make its decision on the papers and in light of the submission already provided. The Tribunal would have had the option to dismiss the application based on non-appearance.

6. The applicant’s migration agent did not return phone calls from the Tribunal seeking information as to the applicant’s wishes in relation to the application after non-appearance at the hearing.

7. In the circumstances, given that a substantive submission had been provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal has proceeded to make its decision on the information before it.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. In the present matter, 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.

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

12. In the present case, there is a question as to whether the notice issued by the Minister’s delegate complied with certain procedural requirements associated with the notice. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.101(b) in the following respects:

    Particulars of the possible non-compliance:

    I consider that there has been non-compliance with the following section of the Migration Act 1958:

    Section 101. Visa application must be correct

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

    …

    (b) no incorrect answers are given or provided.

    By operation of s99 of the Act, 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.

    Section 101. Visa application must be correct

    On 15 May 2014 your partner [Ms A] lodged an offshore application for a class TU subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa; you were included as her dependent.

    In the visa application form [Ms A] provided the following responses under 'Character declarations':

    Have you, or any person included in this application to apply for this visa, ever:

    been removed or deported from any country (including Australia)?

    No

    If Yes, please give details

    been excluded from or asked to leave any country (including Australia)?

    No

    If Yes, please give details

    At the 'Declaration' section of the form, [Ms A] declared as follows:
    
    

    I declare that:

    The information I have supplied in this application is complete, correct and up-to-date in every detail.

    Yes

    I am aware that I must immediately advise the department if I become aware that any information provided in this form is incorrect or if there is a change in my circumstances that is relevant to this application at any time.

    Yes

    On 27 May 2014 on the basis of this information as well as meeting other relevant criteria, your class TU subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa was granted to you.

    On 12 February 2016, the department received adverse information from another agency in regards to your identity. The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) agency, New South Wales, advised the department that they had identified an identical image of you with another person by the name of [Mr B], also born on [Date 1], through Facial Recognition Technology. On 29 August 2016 a further facial image comparison was conducted by a departmental specialist. Photos from your Vocational Education and Training Sector visa application and [Mr B]'s photos from immigration detention, as well as his Protection visa application lodged on 30 January 2012 and class TU subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa application lodged on 13 August 2007 were referred to the department's Identity Resolution Centre for comparison. A Facial Image Comparison Specialist determined that [the applicant] and [Mr B] 'represent the same person'.

    [In] May 2007, you first arrived in Australia under the name [Mr B], holding a class UD subclass 976 Electronic Travel Authority visa. On 29 August 2007 you were granted a class TU subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector Student visa while onshore. The visa ceased on 16 December 2009. You remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen until 30 January 2012 when you lodged an application for a Protection visa; you were granted a Bridging C visa in association with this application. On 3 February 2012 you were refused a Protection visa. You appealed the decision to the Refugee Review Tribunal.

    On 16 May 2012 the delegate's decision was affirmed. On 22 June 2012 your Bridging C visa ceased and you became an unlawful non-citizen. On 24 July 2013 you were found by departmental officers working at [a particular location]. [In] August 2013 you were removed from Australia. By overstaying your visa, working illegally, being detained and then removed at government expense you became subject to Public Interest Criterion 4014 which means that you were barred from making any further visa applications for three years from date of departure.

    [In] June 2014 you re-entered Australia [under a particular alias] holding a class TU subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa.

    I consider that you provided incorrect information to the department at the questions and declaration statements extracted above in your class TU subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa application form.

    I consider that the correct responses to the visa application form questions above was to state your removal and subsequent exclusion from Australia in 2013.

    By providing incorrect information, it appears that you have not complied with section 101(b) of the Migration Act. Accordingly, your visa is liable for cancellation based on section 109 of the Migration Act. It does not matter whether you deliberately or inadvertently did not comply.

13. The decision to cancel the visa indicates that no response to the s.107 notice was received.

14. The applicant’s migration agent made a written submission to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing in relation to the s.107 notice. This submission was provided in response to information put to the applicant in writing under the procedural requirements of s.359A of the Act relating to the Facial Image Comparison Report and other information referred to in the s.107 notice.

15. It is submitted that there was defective notification to the applicant of the s.107 notice. It is indicated that the notice was sent by registered post to an incorrect address. Australia Post information indicates that the mail could not be delivered because the address was incorrect, incomplete or unclear. It is submitted that the address was never the applicant’s residential address. The applicant never received the notice. The notice was ‘returned to sender’. As the applicant did not receive the notice he was denied procedural fairness.

16. It is submitted that r.2.55 requires officers to check that the address is correct and there is no indication that proper checks were made. There is no indication that other avenues were explored to find the applicant. It is submitted that steps could have been taken to contact the primary visa holder in an effort to find the applicant.

17. It is submitted that the s.107 notice contains errors. The notice indicates that that the applicant overstaying his visa meant he became subject to Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4014. It is submitted that this is inaccurate and incomplete as it does not address other possible repercussions, such as Special Return Criteria as per Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) as well as PIC 4004 as per Schedule 4 of the Regulations, that my apply.

18. It is submitted that the 14 day period that the applicant was given to respond to the s.107 notice was not reasonable. This is because of a number of factors including the applicant’s extensive migration history, his inability to speak fluent English, his need to seek advice on the matter and the length of time that the Department had investigated the matter.

19. It is submitted that the notice of cancellation was similarly sent to the incorrect address and, again, no other effort was made to locate the applicant. This has resulted in a procedural error. It is submitted that notice was correctly sent to the primary visa holder less than a week after the failed delivery of the notice of cancellation was sent to the applicant. This makes clear the procedural error in relation to the applicant. Submissions are made that the notice of intention to cancel contains errors. It is submitted that there is a breach of the primary visa holder’s privacy rights because reference is made to the primary visa holder being subject to a cancellation decision. This information had not yet been conveyed to the primary visa holder. It is indicated that there is a clear mistake in the date of birth of [Mr B] as [Date 1]. There is no reference to a referral being made to the International Treaty Obligations Assessment in light of the applicant’s previous Protection visa application as mentioned in the background facts of the s.107 notice.

20. Submissions are also made that there was a failure in November 2016 by Departmental officers to return calls from the applicant’s migration agent relating to the proceedings against the applicant.

21. The Tribunal requested from the Department information pertaining to the address details of the applicant known to the Department. It is apparent from the information provided that both the s.107 notice and the notification of cancellation of the visa were not sent to the correct address.

22. That raises the question of whether a defect in the address to which the s.107 notice was sent constitutes a defect in the notice itself that would automatically result in the decision to cancel being set aside.

23. There is no binding judicial authority directly on this point. However, the text of the provisions for cancelling visas under s.109, the reasoning in the Federal Court judgment in Ahmed[1] (concerning cancellations under s.116), and the reasoning in the Federal Circuit Court judgment in SZEEM[2] suggest that correctly sending a s.107 notice is a procedural pre-condition, a defect in which can be ‘cured’ on review, and not a substantive pre-condition which limits the exercise of the Tribunal’s powers on review.

    [1] MIMIA v Ahmed (2005) 143 FCR 314

    [2] SZEEM v MIAC [2005] FMCA 27 (Smith FM, 27 January 2005)

24. In both cases the Court held that the Tribunal has power to ‘cure’ a failure by the delegate to follow the mandatory procedures required before cancelling a visa. It is to be noted that a defect in the procedure is to be contrasted with a defect in the content of the s.107 notice.

25. As indicated, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant prior to the hearing pursuant to the procedural requirements of s.359A of the Act putting adverse information in relation to the Facial Image Comparison Report of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection dated 29 August 2016. The Report compares a facial image of the applicant with three facial images of [Mr B] and indicates, based on specific enumerated similarities, that the individuals represent the same person.

26. The Tribunal noted that this information suggests that the applicant previously held the identity of [Mr B] and previously entered Australia in the circumstances outlined in the s.107 notice. That, in turn, suggests that the applicant provided incorrect answers as indicated in those documents in his application for the 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa, in which he was a dependent applicant, lodged on 15 May 2014.

27. The applicant’s migration agent provided a written response as outlined above. Those submissions do not directly deal with or seek to rebut the claim that the applicant previously entered Australia under the previous identity in the circumstances claimed. Indeed, there appears an acknowledgement that the applicant did hold the identity of [Mr B] in arguing that the delegate failed to take into account that the applicant had previously lodged a Protection visa application and faced harm on return to Malaysia. The applicant, in his current name, has not lodged a Protection visa application, but [Mr B] did lodge such an application.

28. It is clear from the submission by the applicant’s migration agent that the applicant had a copy of the s.107 notice the content of which is referred to in the written response.

29. The Tribunal considers that the applicant had a reasonable time to respond to the s.359A notification.  A request for an extension of time to respond was granted and detailed submissions provided.

30. The Tribunal is of the view that the procedural defect in terms of the s.107 notice not being sent to the applicant has been cured on review.  That defect, being cured, is not a cause for the Tribunal to automatically set aside the cancellation.

31. The other defects as claimed by the applicant’s representative in the s.107 notive are, if defects at all, minor defects which do not go to the substance of the allegations or affect the applicant’s ability to respond to the allegations. In this respect, they do not necessarily preclude valid cancellation. The Tribunal is satisfied that the substance of the allegations, namely that the applicant had entered Australia previously on another identity in the circumstances outlined, particularly that he had been removed or deported from Australia, have been properly put to the applicant.

32. For these reasons, 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 necessary statutory requirements.

33. The Tribunal does not consider that the failure to send to the applicant the notice of cancellation to the correct address is a basis on its own for remital. It is clear that the applicant has now been provided with full pertinent details in relation to the cancellation.

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

34. 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.

35. The applicant, as indicated above, has implicitly accepted non-compliance as outlined in the s.107 notice and has made no rebuttal to the contention that he entered Australia on the previous identity as claimed and falsely indicated in his current application for a Student visa that he had never been excluded from or asked to leave Australia or deported from Australia.

36. Considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is non-compliance in the way set out in the s.107 notice.

37. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

38. As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).

39. In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations. Briefly, they are:

    ·     the correct information;

    ·     the content of the genuine document (if any);

    ·     whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document;

    ·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred;

    ·     the present circumstances of the visa holder;

    ·     the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act;

    ·     any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister;

    ·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance;

    ·     any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches;

    ·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.

1. While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

2. Given the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing it has not been possible to explore these matters with the applicant. In the absence of the applicant attending the hearing, the Tribunal does not consider that there are discretionary matters favourable to the applicant in relation to relevant matters, other than indicated below.

3. The correct information is that the applicant had been removed or deported from Australia or been excluded from or asked to leave Australia. He had previously entered Australia under another identity. He had been an unlawful noncitizen for significant periods using that identity. He had been removed at government expense for overstaying his visa. A three year exclusion period in applying for new visas to enter Australia had been imposed.

4. The Tribunal considers that it is clear that the decision to grant the applicant his Student visa to enter Australia using his current identity was based, wholly or partly, on the incorrect information given that he had not been subject to an exclusion period for applying for visas to Australia.

5. The Tribunal finds that the applicant assumed his new identity as a means of circumnavigating Australia’s visa requirements and restrictions on his ability to enter Australia given his past conduct and restrictions imposed on him in relation to an entitlement to re-enter Australia. The applicant did not respond to the s.359A information rebutting such a suggestion or appear before the hearing to explain otherwise.

6. The Tribunal has not been able to question the applicant concerning his present circumstances. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that there may be hardship to the applicant if he has to return to Malaysia against his wishes.

7. The Tribunal has no evidence of subsequent activity involving breaches of obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act.

8. In terms of other instances of non-compliance, the applicant had been an unlawful noncitizen in Australia under his previous identity between 17 December 2009 and 29 January 2012 and 23 June 2012 and 16 August 2013.

9. The Tribunal does not consider that the time elapsed since non-compliance is an overly relevant matter in the exercise of Tribunal’s discretion.

10. The Tribunal has no evidence of other breaches of law by the applicant since non-compliance other than as referred to in this decision.

11. The Tribunal has not had the opportunity to explore with the applicant any contribution he has made to the community.

12. As indicated, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that there may be hardship to the applicant if he is required to leave Australia, in terms of his current activities and what he would prefer. The Tribunal accepts that there will be legal consequences resulting from the cancellation including an inability to apply for visas onshore and exclusion periods. Whilst the applicant would be an unlawful noncitizen, he would be entitled to apply for a Bridging visa to make his status lawful while he makes arrangements to leave the country. In the absence of the applicant appearing before the Tribunal to explore such matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm on return to Malaysia such as to invoke Australia’s non-refoulement obligations.

13. In summary, the attempt to circumvent Australia’s immigration laws by the applicant adopting a new identity is a serious matter in terms of the integrity of Australia’s immigration laws. The incorrect information related to matters central to the consideration of the applicant’s entitlement to the visa. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the serious nature of the breach and discretionary factors adverse to the applicant are outweighed by any matters favourable to the applicant such as hardship to him if the visa remains cancelled and the legal consequences of cancellation.

14. The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa.

    David McCulloch
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)

    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.

    108Decision about non‑compliance

    The Minister is to:

    (a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

    (b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.

    109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect

    (1)The Minister, after:

    (a)    deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and

    (b)    considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

    (c)    having regard to any prescribed circumstances;

    may cancel the visa.

    (2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.