1704773 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1172

1704773 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1172 (29 June 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1704773

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Stateless

MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan

DATE:29 June 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 29 June 2017 at 10:41am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Cancellation – Stateless – Fabricated information – Incorrect answers on protection visa application – Not stateless Bidoon – Iraqi citizen

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss. 97-101,107, 109(1), 109(2), 140
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, 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, based on the visa holder’s brother’s possession of Iraqi citizenship documentation that the visa holder was also an Iraqi citizen, and not stateless as he claimed. 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 1 May 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

4.    The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

5.    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

6. 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.

7.    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.

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

8.    In the present case, there is a question as to whether the notice issued by the Minister’s delegate complied with s.107.  Section 97 of the Act makes it clear that the Protection Visa application falls within the definition of an application form, and section 99 also makes it clear that information given in writing or orally in the application form or at interview is taken to be an answer for the purposes of the Act.  The adviser claimed that the basis of the cancellation was the belief that the applicant’s brother was an Iraqi citizen and not stateless, and that therefore the visa holder must also be an Iraqi citizen and not stateless, and that it was not reasonable to extend concerns over the brother’s citizenship status to the visa holder.

9.    I am satisfied that the Notice of Intention (folio 59) shows that the particulars of the non-compliance in the form of incorrect information given in writing as part of the statutory declaration in support of the visa application were explicitly stated at paragraph 17, and the details of the particulars discussed at paragraphs 10-15 of the Notice.  It shows how the belief has been reasonably formed that because the visa holder’s brother is an Iraqi citizen then the visa holder himself, due to the provisions of the Iraqi constitution, is also an Iraqi citizen.  

1. 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 contained within that Section of the Act.   

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

1. The applicant arrived by boat at [destination] [in] November 2011 as an irregular maritime arrival and made claims to be a refugee.  As part of those claims he stated that he was stateless (Bidoon) and a former habitual resident of Kuwait.  He claimed that he was discriminated against because of his statelessness, and attended a rally for Bidoon rights in Kuwait [in] February 2011.  During this rally he was detained by state security forces for a month and tortured by them.  His details were now known to the state security forces.

2. [In] June 2012 the applicant lodged a protection visa application.  On the basis of the information provided by the applicant in his refugee assessment and Form 866 application, the applicant was found to meet the criteria for a protection visa which was granted [in] July 2012. 

3. 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 lack of nationality. [In] December 2012 the visa holder’s brother lodged a sponsorship application for his [wife] (and [number] of his children) for a partner visa.  In support of this visa application the following documents were provided to the Department:

   a.The visa holder’s brother’s Iraqi personal identity card (listing his place of birth as Basra, Iraq),

   b.The visa holder’s brother’s [number] children’s Iraqi personal identity cards (listing a place of birth as Basra, Iraq)

   c.The visa holder’s brother’s [number] children’s Iraqi citizenship certificates, and

   d.Iraqi passports for the visa holder’s brother’s wife (issued [in] 2010 – folio 9 refers) and [number] children (all issued [in] 2012).

4. Article 18 of the Iraqi Constitution states that ‘Iraqi citizenship is a right for every Iraqi and is the basis of his nationality.  Anyone who is born to an Iraqi father or to an Iraqi mother shall be considered an Iraqi.’ Given the visa holder’s brother and the brother’s family have Iraqi identity documents it therefore followed that the visa holder himself is also an Iraqi citizen.

5. Subsequent to the grant of the protection visa, it was also DIBP records indicate that the visa holder departed Australia [in] October 2013 to Iraq and stayed there for [number] months.

6. 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 s. 101 in the following respects regarding his application for a protection visa:

7. With respect to Question 20 ‘Your citizenship at birth ?’ the applicant answered ‘stateless’. The Notice stated that this was incorrect because his brother possessed an Iraqi identity card which is only issued to Iraqi citizens;

8. With respect to Question 22 – ‘Do you hold any other citizenship or are you a national of any other country ? You ticked ‘No’. The Notice stated this was incorrect as the visa holder’s brother’s Iraqi National Identity card indicated he was an Iraqi citizen and hence it appeared that the visa holder was also an Iraqi citizen;

9. With respect to Question 23 – ‘Do you have a right to enter or reside in, whether temporarily or permanently, any country(s) other than your country(s) of nationality or your former country(s) of habitual residence ?’ the visa holder ticked ‘No’.  The Notice stated this was incorrect given he was considered to be an Iraqi citizen and did have the right to enter and reside in Iraq.  Departmental records also showed that the visa holder had travelled to Iraq in 2013; and

10. With respect to Question 43 – ‘Why did you leave that country ?’ the visa holder stated ‘please refer to my attached statement’ (the relevant parts of the statement were quoted in the Notice). The statement said the visa holder ‘took part in a rally with other stateless Bidoon people…the aim of this rally was to be permitted to have citizenship.’  The visa holder further stated that as a stateless Bidoon he had no civil rights.  Given he appeared to be an Iraqi citizen and not stateless his response to this question contained incorrect answers.    

11. The particulars of the applicant’s claim and their relationship to the visa cancellation notice were then discussed with the applicant.

Discussion

1. The applicant was advised that he had been granted a protection visa based on information that he had given.  Subsequent to this the Immigration Department had obtained adverse information regarding his nationality (this had been set out in the notification of intention to cancel his visa).  [In] December 2012 his brother had given documents for himself and his wife and [number] of his children that appeared to indicate that his brother was an Iraqi citizen and, given they had the same parents then he too would appear to be an Iraqi citizen and to have been at the time of applying for a protection visa, and therefore would not have been a Bidoon or attended a rally in support of them in Kuwait.

2. He claimed he didn’t know about his brother having a passport, or about any documentation any of his brother’s family had.  Asked if he received a letter from the Australian government stating that he may lose his visa, he claimed it was already cancelled.  He claimed that he didn’t know.  He was asked if he received a letter about the issue and he stated that he was here trying to get his visa back but claimed not to know why he had lost it. 

3. He claimed that he didn’t have citizenship, and had no idea about his brother’s citizenship.  He was asked whether, after receiving the letter from DIBP about his brother’s citizenship, he enquired about the issue and he claimed that he asked his brother about the letter as he didn’t know what was in it.  He didn’t answer whether he had spoken to his lawyer about this when asked.  He claimed he was in shock when he received the letter and didn’t ask his brother about his citizenship; he agreed that they lived together at the same address but his brother had never told the applicant about his citizenship. 

4. The applicant didn’t know whether his brother had citizenship.  It was put to him that the brother may be an Iraqi citizen and not stateless, which meant that the applicant was also not a stateless Bidoon and was Iraqi.  There were concerns that he may be passing himself off as a stateless Bidoon from Kuwait.  He claimed that his brother’s wife and children had citizenship through the wife’s brother but the applicant’s brother had no citizenship.  The applicant’s family was in Iraq via [Country 1] from Kuwait.  They had had no problems in Iraq but had no documents.  He had no idea how they moved from Kuwait to [Country 1] and Iraq but thought they used passports. 

5. Asked whether he ever asked his family how they moved, what documents they used and the like, and he claimed that someone helped his father to get passports but he didn’t know what they were – he never asked about them.  Asked why they left Kuwait, he claimed the situation for Bidoon is not good there but they are treated better in Iraq.  His family was in Basra but there were a few issues with the Sunnis being looked for.  There were no problems now but had been.  Asked why they moved there if there were problems for Sunnis there, he claimed there were Sunnis in Basra.

6. Asked if his brother’s family had problems he claimed that he didn’t think so, none of his brothers’ children had been hurt.  Their families lived in the same area in separate houses that were close together – they saw each other all the time.  Asked how the applicant’s family accessed education and healthcare without being citizens, he claimed his wife’s family looked after that for them.  His wife’s family was in Basra and had moved there a long time ago.  Asked if it was before he was married he waited a long time before answering and then avoided answering the question.  He was asked the question several times but stated he couldn’t remember when the family left Kuwait. 

7. Asked why they moved to Basra and whether they were Iraqi citizens, he claimed they were citizens but he didn’t know of what country.  It was put to him that this was hard to believe.  He repeated that he didn’t know and had never asked.  It was put to him that if they were Iraqi citizens then his wife was an Iraqi citizen or could be.  Asked if she had explored this possibility, he then claimed that maybe they didn’t have citizenship.  He only knew they were residents of Kuwait who left for Iraq.  It was put to him that his lack of knowledge appeared to lack credibility.  He repeated that he didn’t know.

8. The applicant was a carer for his brother who was not well; he did not and had not worked since being in Australia.  His brother was on a pension [and] the applicant was a designated [carer].  He received Centrelink benefits for this.  He had travelled to Iraq and had stayed with his family.  His brother had changed his name because he didn’t like the old name but didn’t know why; he had not asked him.

9. He appeared to have no interest in his brother’s identity documentation or even what nationality his parents-in-law were.  It was reasonable to believe that a stateless person would be fundamentally interested in these issues.  He didn’t wish to make a comment on this when asked. 

10. The adviser raised an issue regarding the validity of the s 101 notice because the applicant’s brother was believed to have Iraqi ID and it was not reasonable to extend this to the applicant as there was no information regarding his nationality.  The legislative requirement to cancel the visa required detailed particulars, and there was no mention how the particulars applied to the applicant.

11. He also claimed that the applicant appeared to be slow, but he could not provide any medical or psychiatric report.  The Tribunal advised that there was no medical evidence and the questions put to the applicant by the Tribunal were quite straightforward.  It was put to the adviser that it may be reasonable for the applicant to enquire of his brother as to his nationality.  The adviser stated that their relationship might not be such that the applicant felt comfortable to ask and it was put to him that the applicant was his brother’s carer which would indicate a close relationship.

Analysis

1. I am not satisfied that the applicant is a stateless Bidoon who had taken part in a rally for stateless rights in Kuwait, was detained and then tortured by Kuwaiti security forces.  Rather, I find that he is an Iraqi citizen.  And because he is an Iraqi citizen it follows that he never attended a rally in Kuwait for stateless people, was never detained nor tortured.

2. The finding regarding his possession of Iraqi citizenship is based on the fact that his brother and his brother’s family have Iraqi identity documents.  Given they are full brothers it follows that the visa holder is also an Iraqi citizen as per the Constitutional provisions with respect to Iraqi citizenship.

3. I found his alleged ignorance of anything related to citizenship to lack credibility.  He claimed he knew nothing about his brother’s citizenship or that his brother’s family had any identity documentation. He later claimed that his brother’s wife and children had citizenship through her brother but his brother had none.  I find it implausible that the visa holder would be ignorant as to his brother’s nationality status given that such an issue would be of vital interest to someone claiming to be stateless, they live together and the visa holder is the brother’s carer.

4. I find it equally implausible that the applicant would know so little about his own family’s movements or the background of his parents-in-law.  He never asked on what passports his family allegedly left Kuwait to go to [Country 1], nor did he know what nationality his parents-in-law were, or if they had citizenship.  He was vague and contradictory when speaking about his parents-in-law, only that they had lived in Basra for a long time.  Once again, his lack of knowledge about the documentation his own family allegedly used to leave Kuwait or the citizenship status of his wife’s family reinforces the view that the applicant is an Iraqi citizen and was at the time he applied for protection.

5. I have taken into account the adviser’s claim that the visa holder was slow, but give it little weight.  No medical evidence was given in support of the claim and he appeared to be evasive, rather than slow, when answering questions.  I lend little weight to the documents that he claims indicate his father’s presence in Kuwait as Bidoon.  The documents such as the birth certificate (folio 61) are for someone by the name of [name] born to a father by the name of [name]. The applicant claimed that [variation of his surname] belong to the same tribe so the names are interchangeable, however I have found no independent country information that would support this claim, nor was any provided by the visa holder.

6. I have also taken into account ready pointed out the anomalies in some of the naming conventions in the Kuwaiti documents.  I lend more weight on the implausibility of the applicant’s claims and the nature of the information that indicates his Iraqi nationality.

Conclusion on non-compliance

1. I am satisfied that the visa holder fabricated his claim regarding his statelessness and the impact of that, including the fact that he was detained and tortured by Kuwaiti authorities for taking part in a rally for stateless people in Kuwait.  Given that I have found the visa holder to be an Iraqi citizen, and that he knew himself to be one at the time he made a protection visa application, I am satisfied that the applicant has provided false information in his claim and that he gave incorrect answers to questions 20, 22, 23 and 43.

2. In particular, he claimed to be a stateless Bidoon from Kuwait and at Question 20 he answered that he was stateless at birth when he was an Iraqi citizen at birth.  At Question 22 he answered that he did not hold the citizenship of any other country when at the time he was an Iraqi citizen.  At Question 23 he claimed that he did not have the right to enter or reside in any country other than his country of citizenship or country of habitual former residence when he was an Iraqi citizen who could enter and reside there.  At Question 43 he claimed that he left Kuwait because he took part in a rally with other stateless Bidoon people, when he was an Iraqi citizen and therefore not a stateless Bidoon.  For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s. 101 by the applicant as described in the s. 107 notice.

Should the visa be cancelled?

1. 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).

2. 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

1. The correct information is that at the time of lodging the application for a protection visa, the applicant was an Iraqi citizen and not a stateless Bidoon as he claimed.  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.

2. I have taken into account the adviser’s claims that it was not reasonable to determine the visa holder’s nationality based on his brother’s family’s identity documents, however I am satisfied that the fact that his brother’s family have Iraqi passports issued between 2010 and 2012 and his brother has an Iraqi identity card to be proof that the visa holder’s brother is an Iraqi and therefore the visa holder would also be.  The visa holder’s claimed lack of curiosity regarding his brother’s or parents-in-law’s nationality status further strengthens my belief that the visa holder is an Iraqi citizen.

• the content of the genuine document (if any): N/A.

• 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

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision to grant the applicant a protection visa was based on findings that the applicant was a stateless Bidoon who had been detained and tortured by Kuwaiti authorities for participating in a protest rally for Bidoon rights.

2. For the stated reasons, the Tribunal has found that the applicant is not, and never has been a stateless Bidoon and has always been an Iraqi citizen.  The Tribunal therefore finds that the decision to grant the applicant a protection visa was wholly or partly based on the incorrect information that the applicant provided in the application for a protection visa.

• the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

1. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has knowingly provided incorrect information with respect to his fear of returning to Iraq 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 that he was a stateless Bidoon.

• the present circumstances of the visa holder

1. The applicant’s immediate family all live in Iraq with the exception of his brother and [a relative] with whom he lives in Australia.  His decision to travel back to Iraq once to visit his family indicates that he remains close to them.  He did not work in Australia, lived with his brother (for whom he was a designated carer) and was living on Centrelink benefits.   His brother’s protection visa has also been cancelled so his role as carer could continue in Iraq if that is required, or the brother’s family could take over that role.  Either way, his position as his brother’s carer in Australia has no impact on this decision.

2. His roots in this country do not appear to be deep.  On return to Iraq he would be reunited with his family and be easily able to integrate back into Iraqi society.  On the face of it, given he has not worked in Australia nor contributed significantly to the Australian community, few if any people or Australian organisations 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

1. The applicant has not conceded that incorrect information was provided by him with respect to his protection application.  He maintains that he is a stateless Bidoon and was so at the time that he made the protection visa application.

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

1. 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

1. The original non-compliance dates from June 2012.  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

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in relation to any breaches of the law or any other instances of non-compliance.  The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight.

• any contribution made by the holder to the community.

1. The applicant has not been working since arriving in Australia, and has been drawing Centrelink benefits during that time.  His contribution to the broader Australian community has been lacking, and there is nothing in his behaviour in terms of personal contribution to the Australian community that would indicate that the visa should not be cancelled.

2. 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.

Australia’s International Obligations

1. The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant is a stateless Bidoon or that there is a real chance that he would face serious harm on return to Iraq.  A detailed ITOA was completed, the applicant having been given the opportunity to submit information to inform the ITOA, and the assessment determined that there was not a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to Iraq. 

2. I note that the rest of the family have lived in Basra without incident since 2011 or 2012 and the visa holder’s brother-in-law (and the parents-in-law of the visa holder’s brother) for longer than that. 

3. I note that the visa holder returned from Australia to Iraq in 2013.  While he claimed he only did this because his wife was sick and he had to spend all the time hiding because they were selectively targeting Sunnis in Zubair, Basra Province I also note that his parents-in-law have lived without incident in Basra for many years, as has his own family.  His wife’s illness also relies on the visa holder’s oral evidence, which I have found to lack credibility. 

4. The ITOA was completed in February 2017 and found that non-refoulement obligations were not engaged in the applicant’s case.  The Tribunal also considers that the applicant’s willingness to return to Iraq demonstrated that he does not have any subjective fear of harm about returning to Iraq.

Effect of the Cancellation

1. 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 is an Iraqi citizen and can obtain a valid Iraqi passport (if he does not already possess one) so can return to Iraq at any time.  Therefore the Tribunal finds that indefinite detention is not a possible consequence of the cancellation decision.

CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

1. 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

1. 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:

1. Interpretation

   (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.

2. Interpretation

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).

1. Completion 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.

2. Information 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.

3. Incorrect 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.

4. Visa 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.

5. Notice 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.