1703880 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 3122

1703880 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3122 (7 August 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1703880

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Iran

MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan

DATE:7 August 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

Statement made on 07 August 2017 at 1:15pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Cancellation – Protection visa – Iran – Provided incorrect information – Non -compliance – Fabricated claims – Antigovernment activities – Religious identity – No fear of serious harm  – Obtained an Iranian passport – Voluntarily returned to Iran for extended periods of time – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 91R, 107, 109, 375A
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.41

CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

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 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 the applicant gave incorrect answers to certain questions in his Protection Visa Application Form 866C. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 June 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian and English languages.

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

8. The applicant arrived by boat [in] 10 January 2011 as an irregular maritime arrival and made claims to be a refugee.  As part of those claims he stated that he and his father had both been wounded in the Iran-Iraq war and his father later protested regarding for being poorly treated by the government with respect to his injuries.  Because of this, the applicant was denied his own medical treatment.

9. He worked as [an occupation] and assisted students to escape who were wanted by the security forces.  He was caught doing this and fired from his job.  He was taken to a mental hospital and prescribed electric shock treatment but didn’t want this and a friend helped him escape from the hospital.  He was later forced to sign in at a veteran’s organisation every month so he could be monitored.

10. He feared being targeted by the government for having made a complaint about his medical treatment and decided to leave Iran.  Because of his treatment he lost faith in Islam and decided to change his faith to Christianity once [overseas].  He continued to pursue this once [in detention in Australia] and feared people he knew had reported this back to Iran.  The punishment for denouncing Islam in Iran is death by stoning.

11. On the basis of the information provided by the applicant in his refugee assessment and Form 866 application, he was found to meet the criteria for a protection visa which was granted on 15 September 2011.  As discussed below, subsequent information indicated that the applicant had not provided correct answers in the application for a protection visa, relating to his claimed fear of being targeted by the Iranian authorities.

12. Subsequent to the grant of the protection visa, DIBP records indicate that the applicant departed Australia on 14 October 2013 for a period of four months and spent most of that time in Iran. He had used an expired Australian titre de voyage to return and originally denied that he had used another travel document.  He subsequently presented a current Iranian passport in his name issued by the Iranian embassy in Canberra on [date] 2013 in the applicant’s name.  On 2 May 2015 he again departed Australia for a period of nearly six months and spent most of that time in Iran.

13. 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 in the following respects:

    a.With respect to Question 7 ‘Date of birth’ the applicant answered [Date of birth 1].  The notice stated that he was found by DIBP officials with a valid Iranian passport issued by the Iranian embassy in Canberra that showed his date of birth as [Date of birth 2];

    b.With respect to Question 42 ‘Why you left Iran’ the applicant answered via his statutory declaration that he had been denied medical treatment for war-related injuries because of his war veteran father’s anti-government protest activities, he had been sent to a hospital and prescribed electric shock treatment by a psychiatrist because he had himself complained against the government and he feared for his life as a result.  The notice stated that after being granted the protection visa and issued with an Australian travel document (Titre de Voyage) he voluntarily contacted the Iranian embassy in Australia, obtained an Iranian passport and used that to visit family in Iran.  If he feared harm from the Iranian state it was implausible that he would voluntarily engage with the Iranian authorities and draw attention to himself to obtain an Iranian travel passport when he had an Australian-issued one, and then voluntarily travel twice for extended periods to Iran using an Iranian travel document.  On return to Australia he had been interviewed by airport officials and he did not indicate that he had received electric shock treatment or experienced any harm from Iranian authorities, indicating that he did not fear harm from the Iranian authorities;

    c.With respect to Question 43 ‘Why you feared returning to Iran’ the applicant answered via his statutory declaration that he feared being forced to undergo electric shock treatment, facing punishment from the government for his imputed political opinion and for being a failed asylum seeker from a Western country, being stoned to death for denouncing the Muslim faith and converting to Christianity and that he couldn’t relocate elsewhere in Iran because he would face similar treatment wherever he went in Iran.  The notice stated his voluntary contact with the Iranian embassy in Australia to obtain an Iranian passport and draw attention to himself and his intent to return to Iran when he did not have to do so indicates that he had no fear of serious harm from the authorities when he lodged his protection claim.  His choice to voluntarily travel twice for extended periods to Iran using an Iranian travel document also indicated that he did not fear serious harm from the authorities.  On return to Australia he had been interviewed by airport officials and he did not indicate that he had received electric shock treatment or experienced any harm from Iranian authorities, also indicating that he did not fear harm from the Iranian authorities;

    d.With respect to Question 44 ‘Who you fear may harm or mistreat you if you returned to Iran’ the applicant answered via his statutory declaration that the Iranian government and their agents including the Basij and Etilaat would do so.  The notice stated that after being in Australia he voluntarily engaged with Iranian authorities, obtained an Iranian passport, travelled in and out of Iran twice through official border crossings under the identity he claimed was of interest to Iranian authorities.  The Iranian authorities had ample time (four and six months respectively) on his trips to locate and harm him if they intended to, and he was allowed to leave Iran on both occasions.  Because of these reasons he experienced no serious harm from the authorities and therefore did not hold the profile which meant that he was at risk of harm that he had claimed in his protection visa application; and

    e.With respect to Question 45 ‘Why you feared this would happen’ the applicant answered via his statutory declaration that it was because he had complained against the government, helped student protestors escape from security forces, changed his religion since leaving Iran and that this had been reported to authorities in Iran, and because he would belong to a particular social group of failed asylum seekers and returnees from Western countries. 

    f.The notice stated that after being in Australia he voluntarily engaged with Iranian authorities, obtained an Iranian passport, travelled in and out of Iran twice through official border crossings under the identity he claimed was of interest to Iranian authorities.  The Iranian authorities had ample time (four and six months respectively) on his trips to locate and harm him if they intended to, and he was allowed to leave Iran on both occasions.  Because of these reasons he experienced no serious harm from the authorities and therefore did not hold the profile which meant that he was at risk of harm that he had claimed in his protection visa application.

    Discussion

14. The applicant claimed that he had provided a response to the notification of intention to cancel his visa.  He was shown a document from his file and agreed that this was the only document that he had provided in response.  He claimed that the answers he gave in his protection visa application were true.  He feared facing serious harm on return to Iran because of his religion and because of other problems also – he did not provide details at this time of those ‘other problems’. He claimed that at the time that he filled out his protection visa he feared serious harm if he returned to Iran.

15. It was put to him that subsequent to being issued a protection visa he had sought and had been issued an Iranian passport on [date] 2013 with a date of birth stated as [Date of birth 2].  He claimed initially that his date of birth was [Date of birth 1].  He was again asked what date was inside his Iranian passport and he stated that it said [Date of birth 1].  It was also put to him that he had spent two periods of four (in 2013) and six months (in 2015) in Iran. He agreed that he actively sought an Iranian passport and travelled to Iran twice despite claiming to fear being stoned, receiving shock treatment and being punished by the government.  He initially said that he enjoyed loved to be killed for Jesus Christ and was not afraid.  It was put to him that this was not the question he was asked.

16. He claimed he was the father of the church in Iran and had to return.  Asked if he had family in Iran he claimed that he had a son, his mother and [brothers].  He stayed with his mother and son while in Iran for the whole time he was in Iran.  Nothing happened to him while he was there – he did not understand why nothing occurred but he wasn’t scared of anything.  Asked if he wasn’t scared of anything why he needed protection, he claimed that he didn’t know. 

17. He was asked again and he repeated that he spread the word of Jesus in Iran and had a photo of him at church.  He was asked why he voluntarily approached the Iranian authorities to get a passport then return on two occasions with nothing happening to him when he claimed he feared serious harm in Iran.  He then repeated that he shared the message and wasn’t scared of anything.  

18. Asked if he was a member of any faith in Australia, he claimed that he was Christian and sometimes went to churches in [several suburbs].  He just prayed in them.  He had no recommendations from clergy, nor was there a record of baptism or any record of having done any religious study in Australia.  He claimed he was baptised by [Mr A] in [Suburb 1] but had lost the form.  He could provide no proof that he attended these churches or undertook any study and it was put to him that it may be open to the Tribunal that he was fabricating his claim regarding his Christian beliefs. 

19. He showed the Tribunal several photos of an abandoned church in what he claimed was Iran.  It was only a shell of a building and didn’t look as though it had been in use for many years.  He agreed that it was an abandoned church in Shiraz.  It was put to him that this wouldn’t indicate that he had any interest in Christianity and was asked if he could provide anything that would support such a claim, such as a baptism certificate, evidence of religious education or the like.  He claimed that he had trained himself via the bible.

20. It appeared that he faced no fear of serious harm in Iran because he had freely approached the Iranian embassy in Canberra and had travelled to Iran twice for extended periods without any interest in him being shown by Iranian authorities. He had claimed in his response to the s 107 letter that he was a priest at [a] church in Iran, and was asked what he meant by this. He said that he got people to church and his mother, son and friends had converted to Christianity. He had not mentioned this before. Asked if he had qualifications as a priest, he claimed he had it from Jesus. Asked if he had any proof of studying Christianity in Australia that would qualify him as a priest, he said that he didn’t know English but he had his own church.

21. The Tribunal said that it had concerns that the applicant wasn’t Christian, let alone a priest. He stated he wouldn’t have taken an oath on the bible if he wasn’t. He was advised of s 91R(3) and it was put to him that swearing on the bible may have just been a way of presenting himself as having a Christian identity. The applicant asked the member to read his application.

22. It was also put to him that the date of birth on his Iranian passport was different to that in his visa application and his Australian travel document.  He had no comment to make regarding this.  He was not working in Australia, nor had he since he had arrived in Australia.  He had been on Centrelink benefits since then.  Asked if he had had any police records since being in Australia, he claimed he had received a loan but could not pay it back.  Asked if legal action had been taken against him, he claimed that it hadn’t. 

23. He sent the money to his mother and son and spent some of it.  He got loans from [two banks].  Asked how he was able to get a loan, he claimed that his friend applied for the loan in the applicant’s name (acted as guarantor).  The loan was for $20,000 which he took out two years ago.  He claimed nothing had happened to either he or his friend from the banks.  It was put to him that the Tribunal couldn’t believe this, and was asked if he had any documentary evidence to support this.  He did not.   

24. He claimed he had not been charged by the police but they had taken him two or three times and hospitalised him.  Asked what contribution he had made to Australian society he claimed he hadn’t made any but if there was something he could do he would.

    Analysis

25. Through the notice of intention to cancel his protection visa the applicant has been provided an opportunity to address the concerns regarding his interaction with Iranian authorities and willingness to return to Iran on two occasions.  His only response to this was to state that he had converted to Christianity from Islam and returned to Iran to convert people to Christianity (folio 16).

26. I found his evidence regarding his connection with Christianity in Australia to be lacking.  Although he claimed that he had been baptised by [Mr A] from [Suburb 1] he also claimed that he had lost the form; there were no letters of support or witnesses to attest to his Christian identity or religious behaviour.  He claimed that he attended churches in four suburbs but could provide no evidence to support this.

27. He was also unable to provide evidence that he had attended any Christian religious training either in Australia or elsewhere.  Given he has been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever of connection with Christianity in Australia, let alone expertise in its teachings I find his claim to be Christian to lack credibility. 

28. For the same reason I also find his claim to be a priest with a small congregation in Iran to be completely implausible.  He presented a photo of a church that he claimed was the church that he attended and in which he was a priest in Iran.  I lend this no weight as the church was simply a derelict shell that did not look like it had functioned as a church for many years.

29. Although he claimed that he feared serious harm on return to Iran because of his religious identity, he also claimed that he would be harmed because of ‘other problems’ although he did not go into them any further.  The Tribunal assumes that he is referring to the other claims he made; complaining against the government, helping student protestors escape the security forces and being a failed asylum seeker returning to Iran.

30. He never specifically mentioned, let alone expanded on these claims during the hearing.  However concerns over his credibility with respect to his claims regarding his Christianity, as well as his subsequent personal actions means that I am satisfied that these claims are also fabricated and he fears no serious harm on return to Iran.

31. The applicant arrived [in] 10 January 2011 as an Irregular Maritime Arrival and was granted a protection visa on 15 September 2011.  Subsequent to this he voluntarily approached the Iranian Embassy in Canberra and was issued an Iranian passport on [date] 2013.  He also willingly travelled to Iran in October 2013 for four months and again in May 2015 for six months.  When returning to Australia [in] February 2014 he initially denied to Australian authorities that he had used another travel document but subsequently produced his Iranian passport. This would indicate that the applicant was aware that his possession of an Iranian passport whilst in Australia was not indicative of someone with a fear of serious harm from the Iranian authorities.     

32. Whilst in Iran he remained staying in his mother’s residence, alleged that he actively proselytised while there yet nothing happened to him while he was there.  He also claimed that he didn’t know why nothing had happened to him but that he wasn’t scared of anything.  Neither his actions in approaching the Iranian authorities to be issued an Iranian passport, voluntarily returning to Iran twice for extended periods or being of no interest to the Iranian authorities while there is indicative of someone who fears serious harm if they were to return to Iran.    

    Conclusion on non-compliance

1. I am satisfied that the applicant fabricated his claims regarding his religious identity and activities, complaints against the government and giving assistance to escaping student protestors.  I am also satisfied that he was not of any interest to the Iranian authorities when he left Iran and when he made the claim for protection.  The fact that he has willingly approached the Iranian authorities to be issued a passport while in Australia and then travel to Iran on two occasions for 10 months in total, while facing no difficulties at any stage indicates that he is not of any interest to Iranian authorities.  

2. Given the fact that I have found that the applicant’s claims regarding being of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities prior to seeking protection in Australia to have been fabricated I am satisfied that the applicant has provided false information in his statutory declaration and that he has subsequently given incorrect answers to questions 42, 43, 44 and 45.  Given the birth date that has appeared on his Iranian passport I am also satisfied that he has given an incorrect answer to question 7.  

3. In particular, he answered at Question 42 that he left Iran because he feared for his life when he did not.  At question 43 he answered that if he returned to Iran he feared that he would be stoned to death for denouncing Islam, made to undergo electric shock treatment and punished by the government for his imputed political opinion and for being a failed asylum seeker from a Western country. When in reality he feared that none of these things would happen.  At question 44 he answered that the Iranian government and their agents including the Basij and Etilaat would harm him if he returned to Iran when he was of no adverse interest to the Iranian government or its agents. 

4. At question 45 he answered that he feared this serious harm would happen because he had complained against the government, helped student protestors escape from security forces and his change of religion had been reported to Iranian authorities when none of this had actually occurred. At question 7 he gave his date of birth as [Date of birth 1] when his date of birth in his Iranian passport was [Date of birth 2]. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101 by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

   Should the visa be cancelled?

5. 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).

6. 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

7. The correct information is that at the time of lodging the application for a protection visa, the applicant was not and continues not to be of interest to the Iranian authorities.  He has not, nor would he be considered to have converted to Christianity, nor have the authorities any interest in him for any reason.  The Tribunal considers the provision of incorrect information when applying for a protection visa to be serious and goes to the integrity of the migration program.  The Tribunal gives significant weight to the fact that the applicant has provided incorrect information when he applied for a protection visa.

   ·     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

8. The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision to grant the applicant a protection visa was based on findings that there was a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm or be killed because of real or imputed political opinion. The decision to grant the visa was also based on a belief that the applicant was unable to relocate within Iran because Iranian intelligence networks were so extensive that the applicant would be located and detained once he moved.

9. For the stated reasons the Tribunal has found that the applicant is not, and never has been of interest to the Iranian authorities and is able to travel to and reside in Iran without there being a real chance of suffering serious harm.  Indeed, he has already done so on two occasions for a combined period of 10 months.  The Tribunal therefore finds that the decision to grant the applicant a protection visa was based wholly or partly on the incorrect information that the applicant provided in the application for a protection visa.

   ·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

10. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has knowingly provided incorrect information with respect to his fear of returning to Iran to the Department as part of his protection visa application for the purpose of gaining a visa.  He continued to provide incorrect information when he responded to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation and continued to assert during the hearing that he feared serious harm from the Iranian authorities if he returned to Iran.

    ·     the present circumstances of the visa holder

11. The applicant’s mother and his son still reside in Iran.  His decision to travel back to Iran on two occasions to visit them shows that he remains close to them.  He has not worked since arriving in Australia in 2011 and survives on Centrelink benefits.  His roots in this country do not appear to be deep at all, and the fact that he has spent 10 months back in Iran to visit family since being granted a protection visa indicates that he remains attached to his family back in Iran.  On return to Iran he would be reunited with his family and easily be able to reintegrate back into Iranian society.  Few if any people or Australian organisations or citizens will be disrupted as a consequence of his departure.

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

12. The applicant has not conceded that incorrect information was provided by him with respect to his protection application.  Despite having returned voluntarily to Iran on two occasions for a total of 10 months without incident, he maintains that he is wanted by the Iranian authorities and would be killed if he returned to Iran.

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

13. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in relation to any other instances of non-compliance known to the Minister.  The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight.

    ·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

14. The original non-compliance dates from April 2011.  The Tribunal does not consider this period to be of such significance to mean that the visa should not be cancelled.

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

15. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in relation to any breaches of the law or any other instances of non-compliance.  Although the applicant mentioned a possibility of non-repayment of loans to two banks, the claim was vague and I lend it little weight.  The Tribunal gives the lack of breaches of law some weight.

    ·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.

16. There is no evidence that the applicant has made any significant contribution to the broader community.

17. Whilst 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’. This policy requires delegates to also have regard to matters such as whether the visa would have been granted if the correct information had been given, whether there are persons in Australia whose visa would, or may, be automatically cancelled under s.140 of the Act, and whether the visa cancellation may result in Australia breaching its international obligations.

18. With respect to any possible breach of Australia’s refoulement obligations, I am satisfied that the applicant has fabricated his claims regarding his fear of serious harm on return to Iran.  I do not accept that the applicant has a genuine interest in Christianity, nor that he would seek to conduct any religious activity in Iran.  On the two occasion in which he has returned to Iran he was able to enter and exit without incident and stay at his mother’s house for extended periods of time, again without any interest shown in him by Iranian authorities.  His actions in doing this indicates that he has no subjective fear of harm about returning to Iran.

19. There is a s 375A certificate on the file which I believed to be valid. The applicant was given an opportunity (folio 31) to comment on the validity of the document by 4 August 2017 however no response was received.

    Effect of the Cancellation

20. The Tribunal understands that the effect of affirming the cancellation would cause the applicant to be barred from applying for further visas, and may lead to the applicant being detained as an unlawful non-citizen and that he will be liable to be detained.  The applicant remains an Iranian citizen and has a valid Iranian passport so can return to Iran at any time.  Therefore the Tribunal finds that indefinite detention is not a possible consequence of the cancellation decision.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

21. 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

22. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

    Rodger Shanahan
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT – 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.