1705072 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 2883

1705072 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2883 (15 June 2018)

CORRIGENDUM

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1705072

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Iran

MEMBER:Denis Dragovic

DATE OF DECISION:  15 June 2018

DATE CORRIGENDUM

SIGNED:10 August 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

AMENDMENT:  The following corrections are made to the decision:

1. The words “Date: 15 June 2016” on page 1 of the decision should be replaced with “Date: 15 June 2018”. 

   Denis Dragovic
   Senior Member

   
   

   DECISION RECORD

   DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

   CASE NUMBER:  1705072

   COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Iran

   MEMBER:Denis Dragovic

   DATE:15 June 2016

   PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

   Statement made on 15 June 2018 at 10:50am

   CATCHWORDS
   Refugee – Protection visa – Cancellation – Iran – Providing incorrect answers in visa application – Contact with Iranian authorities in Australia – Return to Iran – Court summons – Family health issues – Real state of satisfaction on grounds for cancellation – Airport arrival and departure checks – Calculated risk versus reward approach – Decision under review set aside

   LEGISLATION
   Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 97-101, 107-109, 116
   Migration Regulations 1994

   CASES
   Zhao v MIMA [2000] FCA 1235

   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

2. 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).

3. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that they did not accept the applicant’s claims that he held an adverse profile based upon his travel back to Iran and his interaction with the Iranian Embassy in Canberra with no issue or impediment in both cases. The delegate did not accept the applicant’s explanation that his travel back to Iran was facilitated through bribery and that he did not see his engagement with the Embassy as a risk. 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. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.

   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 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(b).

   Section 101: Visa applications to be correct

   s101. 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

9. The applicant was granted a protection visa on the 17 July 2012 upon the basis that the delegate accepted that the applicant was employed as [an occupation] by [state] owned [company], that he was punished while in this employment by a reduction in salary and redeployment within Iran for reasons of his participation in anti-government demonstrations and his refusal to cooperate in [specified] activities managed by various state security agencies. The delegate also accepted that the applicant was detained and interrogated and that through this process he was physically and sexually abused. The delegate accepted that the applicant fled Iran after being warned that he would be charged with criminal offences.

10. The applicant travelled to Iran on 3 August 2014 and returned back to Australia on the 2 September 2014. The travel to Iran triggered the Department to further investigate. In doing so they also identified that the applicant had approached the Iranian Embassy in Canberra to have a [legal matter] processed. Based upon the return to Iran and an engagement with the Embassy the Department began the process to cancel the visa.

11. A Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) dated 16 May 2016 was sent to the applicant. It reproduced the applicant’s claims from his protection visa application as relevant to the Department’s assertion of incorrect information being provided. The following is reproduced from the NOICC:

    In response to question 43 "Why did you leave that country'?" and question 45 "What do you fear may happen to you if you go back to that country?" you stated (in part):

    "Because I feared being harmed by the Iranian authorities on account of my political opinion; namely, my refusal to cooperate with my employer [in] [specified activities] in order to assist the Regime in [their programs]".

    In response to question 44 "Have you experienced harm in that country'?" you stated (in part):

    "Yes, I have been placed under surveillance, physically and mentally abused and detained by the Iranian authorities"

    In response to question 46 "Who do you think may harm/mistreat you if you go back?" you stated (in part):

    "The Iranian authorities"

    In response to question 47 "Why do you think this will happen to you if you go back?" you stated (in part):

    "Because of my political opinion; namely, my refusal to cooperate with my employer [in] [specified activities] in order to assist the Regime in [their programs]."

    In response to question 48 "Do you think the authorities of that country can and will protect you if you go back?" you stated (in part):

    "No I do not. Seeing as it is the Iranian authorities who wish to harm me, I do not believe that they will protect me. I do not think that there is anywhere in Iran where I will be safe as the authorities operate throughout the county and do as they please".

    In addition to completing the application form you also provided a Statutory Declaration which was dated 17 May 2012. In this declaration you provided the following information (in part):

    "In early 2012 [a company] colleague whom I trusted called me and said that he had to talk to me privately. He informed me that due to his connections with Heresat he had found out that they were planning to take me to court and put me in prison. He said that it was serious and they were going to do it within a month. It was very common for the Iranian authorities to make false allegations against people they wanted to punish or get rid of. The most common one was the accusation of being opposed to the Regime and acting against the Supreme leader. I knew that if that happened to me there was nothing I could do to defend myself and that I would be imprisoned and tortured. It was this information that pushed me to leave Iran. I went to get my plane ticket to Australia that same day. From that time until my departure about [a number] days later I was deeply fearful that I could be arrested at any moment".

    "Just before going to the airport I told my wife that I had to travel to a different Province for work and would be gone a few days. I did not want to tell her I was leaving the country because I was not sure what her reaction would be".

    "Three or four days after my arrival in [Australia] I contacted my wife who said that a court summons had been sent to our house". She was very angry and said that if I had only done as I was told like my [work] colleagues we would not have to deal with this. I called her once again a few days later and she told me that her and my father had been taken to the police station and questioned about my whereabouts for about five hours. She also said that the authorities had raided our home and confiscated my computer and many of my documents".

    “When I spoke to my father a few days later he told me that it was better that I did not call anymore; it was clear that he feared the phone line was under surveillance. He advised me not to come back to Iran because if I did I would be arrested".

    "I fear that if I am forced to return to Iran I will be harmed by the Iranian authorities because of my political opinion; namely my refusal to cooperate with [my company] in [specified activities] in order to [assist government programs]. Seeing as it is the Iranian authorities who wish to harm me, I do not believe that there is anywhere in Iran where I will be safe as the authorities operate throughout the country and do as they please.”

12. In the NOICC the Department identified the incorrect information as being that:

    You claimed in your application you are of significant adverse interest to the Iranian authorities and that even a court summons was purportedly issued against you. You claimed that you cannot return to Iran as you feared the Iranian authorities will persecute you for your claimed (imputed) political opinion against the Iranian regime.

    I note your voluntarily travel (sic) back to Iran and the subsequent contact you have had with the Iranian authorities both in relation to place a legal [matter] through the Iranian Embassy and through the airports in Iran without apparent issue. This demonstrates that you do not hold the claimed adverse profile nor are you of interest to the Iranian authorities.

    Your Protection visa was granted on the basis that you satisfied the Minister that you engaged Australia's protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. You have claimed that you feared harm from the Iranian authorities and that you could not return to Iran. These claims were fundamental to the determination that you are a person to whom Australia has protection obligations. As the incorrect information / statement you provided was material to this determination, it appears you did not hold the adverse profile that you had claimed and may not have engaged Australia's protection obligations.

    Additionally, I note in your protection application you stated that your former wife had advised you in 2012 that the authorities had raided the house that you shared and had taken your computer and other documents. In the statutory declaration you provided in support of [Ms A’s] application you stated that you had ceased living with your former wife in 2010. This contradicts the information you provided with your protection application. This leads me to have further doubts about the information you provided in support of your protection application.

    I therefore consider that you have not complied with section 101(b) of the Act because you provided incorrect information in association with your application for a class XA subclass 866 Protection Application. Specifically that you feared harm from the Iranian authorities and that you could not return.

13. The applicant provided a detailed response, the details of which are engaged with in the considerations section below, along with the following supporting documents dated 7 June 2016:

    1.Statutory declaration dated 3 June 2016

    2.Translation of Order from [a government agency] dated [November] 2011, evidencing dowry payments to the Visa Holder's ex-wife.

    3.Translated birth certificate of the Visa Holder, confirming his divorce date [in] December 2013.

    4.Evidence of money transfers to the Visa Holder's ex-wife (untranslated.

    5.Copy of [legal matter] granted to the Visa Holder's sister in order to marry his current wife (with translation).

    6.Copy of affidavits affirmed by the Visa Holder's family (with translation). His mother was so ill she was only capable of signing by way of thumb print.

    7.Photographs of the Visa Holder's mother in hospital.

    8.Translated Psychiatrist report in respect of the Visa Holder's wife dated [in] October 2014 with photographs of her in hospital.

    9.Copy of the Visa Holder's Iranian passport, confirming that it expired [in] 2015.

    10.Evidence of money transfers to '[Mr B]' (with translation). The transfers marked '14' and '26' are the two payments made to him.

14. In a further submission to the Department dated 12 July 2016 the applicant provided the following supporting documents:

    1.Certificate of divorce

    2.Portion of the delegate’s decision

15. The department initiated the International Treaties Obligation Assessment process. In response to this the applicant provided further information dated 29 September 2016, a part of which pertains to the first consideration of whether there are grounds for cancellation and is discussed further in the considerations section below.

16. On the 18 November 2016 a further submission was made including statements from the applicant’s [various family members].

    Consideration

17. The department cancelled the applicant’s visa as noted above for the following reason:

    ‘your voluntarily travel (sic) back to Iran and the subsequent contact you have had with the Iranian authorities both in relation to place a legal [matter] to your sister through the Iranian Embassy and through the airports in Iran without apparent issue. This demonstrates that you do not hold the claimed adverse profile nor are you of interest to the Iranian authorities.’

18. The question for the Tribunal to consider is whether there is sufficient evidence to reach a real state of satisfaction that incorrect information was provided. In this instance this requires consideration of the linkage between the applicant’s return to Iran and his engagement with the Embassy with an eye towards how it would impact an individual with the applicant’s claimed adverse profile.

    Engaging with the Iranian Embassy

19. The Department has asserted in its decision to cancel the applicant’s visa that because the applicant had engaged with the Embassy including providing contact information for his family in Iran and his own here in Australia he had rendered them liable for further harassment. Finding that the applicant’s motivation for doing so was not compelling the Department concluded that his original claims of fearing return to Iran must not have been genuine. There are flaws in this logic.

20. Is there any evidence that at any stage the applicant’s sister to whom the [legal matter] was provided was in hiding in Iran? From the evidence available to the Tribunal the answer would be that there isn’t. As such considering that the Iranian government has a national identity card system[1] and that the applicant had claimed that his sister had previously been approached by the security forces it is fair to surmise that the applicant believed at the time that he approached the Embassy that the Iranian government already knew the whereabouts of his sister. If he had such a view then going to the Embassy would not put her at any additional risk.

    [1] ‘the national ID card is that it is smaller than the shenasnameh (i.e. the size of a driver's license) and it contains general information about the holder in an electronic format, enabling the authorities to simply scan the national ID card to obtain information on the holder’ Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Iran: The "shenasnameh," including application and reissuance procedure, physical characteristics, security features, period of validity, meaning of inscriptions, significance of identification number and difference between the shenasnameh and the national identification card (2006), 5 June 2006, IRN101296.E, available at: [accessed 8 June 2018]

21. As for his whereabouts, the applicant has stated that he did not fear the Iranian government in Australia. This is a wholly reasonable position to have. On the contrary it is a strange assertion for the Department to hold that the applicant’s engagement with an embassy in Canberra would place him at risk in Australia if his claims were genuine.

22. The applicant provided further information about the administrative nature of [his legal matter] and his belief that it wouldn’t come to the attention of Iranian security elements, noting that he has not sought a new Iranian passport since his old one expired because he didn’t want to raise his profile with the authorities. These are reasonable assumptions to make.

23. For the reason that his sister’s whereabouts would have been known and as such not of concern to the applicant and his life not under threat by visiting the Embassy I find that the applicant’s engagement with the Embassy to process a [legal matter] does not lend itself in any way to the consideration of whether incorrect information had been provided.

    Return visit to Iran

24. The applicant travelled to Iran on the 3 August 2014 and returned back to Australia on the 2 September 2014. I accept that the Iranian government has extensive security checks that can identify people of interest at immigration control. The applicant claimed that he took measures to evade these security protocols. Two questions arise from this situation. Firstly, whether country information supports the view that evading security protocols is possible and if it does, secondly, whether the evidence provided by the applicant would lead to any doubts as to his claimed evasion of these protocols.

25. Country information from periods close to the dates of the applicant’s transit through Iran is clear on this matter, namely that it is difficult but possible to bribe officials to enter and exit Iran.

    It is unlikely that a person could bribe an official in the passport office to be removed from a black list.  Passport Officials do not have authorisation to alter the lists and would be concerned that the bribery would be uncovered. Bribery, however, is widespread in Iran and it is possible that an individual could bribe an official from one of the other organisations listed…to have their name removed from a blacklist. [2]

    [T]he head of passport border control at Imam Khomeini Airport (IKA) Immigration Police had initially rejected the possibility of a person bribing their way through the airport, he did concede that “where a person does manage to leave Iran illegally this is not due to flaws within the computer system but rather a human error – i.e. a person has been bribed”.[3]

    The source did not consider it possible to exit the Imam Khomeini International Airport with a forged passport, but would not rule out the possibility of a person being able to bribe his way out of the airport - though the price would probably be high. The source indicated that the price could be as high as 8-10,000 Euros. It was added that the source considered that the right connections were also important if one was to bribe one’s way out of the airport. When asked if an average Iranian could pay the necessary bribe, the employee commented that, “Everybody has connections in Iran”. The source indicated that many illegal Iranian migrants abroad have left Iran using original national passports but there were also examples of people having left on foreign forged passports.[4]

    [2] DIAC Country Information Service 2009, Country Information Report No. 09/43 – CIS Request No. IRN 9702; Iranian air force lieutenant involved in activities against Islam, (sourced from DFAT advice of 14 May 2009)

    [3] Danish Immigration Service 2009, Human Rights Situation for Minorities, Women and Converts, and Entry and Exit Procedures, ID Cards, Summons and Reporting, etc: Fact finding mission to Iran 24th August – 2nd September 2008, April, p.37

    [4] Danish Refugee Council, Landinfo and Danish Immigration Service 2013, Iran: On Conversion to Christianity, Issues concerning Kurds and Post-2009 Election Protestors as well as Legal Issues and Exit Procedures, February, p.67   Accessed 26 April 2018

1. The applicant claimed the following. He paid a fixer to facilitate his re-entry into Iran and subsequent exit from Iran. He did so as he knew that by obtaining a new Iranian passport he would be alerting the authorities to his imminent return. The fixer, [Mr B], required [amount] Rials, a sum approximately equivalent to $[amount]. He claims that he did not attend any public places. He did not contact his ex-wife to see his son. He claims that he was told that his ability to return via [Mr B’s] help would be a one-off. He was given instructions on what to do and how to go about it, those detailed instructions were provided by the applicant in his submissions.

2. The applicant provided documentary evidence of the bank transfers to [Mr B]. The veracity of this document was not disputed by the Department. Instead the notations in the English translation provided by the applicant raised some flags. Specifically the Department was concerned that the transactions were marked as ‘Purchase-Card System’. This, the delegate concluded, indicated a purchase rather than a transfer. They also raised the inconsistency between the applicant’s statement that the first payment was via ATM transfer and the second was from the bank account.

3. In Zhao v MIMA, the Court stated:

   The decision-maker, acting under s 116, must be satisfied of one or other of the matters set out in that section before the visa can be cancelled. That state of satisfaction is a real state of satisfaction which must be reached on a consideration of the available material. A visa cannot be cancelled simply because the visa holder has failed to show cause why it should not. … A visa cannot be cancelled because the decision-maker has identified a possible ground of cancellation which the visa holder has not been able to rebut.[5]

   While that case was concerned with cancellation under s.119, the Court’s comments would be equally applicable to s.109 cancellation and in particular note that a real state of satisfaction is required to be reached.

   [5] [2000] FCA 1235 (French, Hill and Carr JJ, 1 September 2000) at [25] and [32].

4. In a very detailed and considered submission to the Tribunal provided by the representative the inconsistencies and concerns raised by the delegate’s decision were addressed. Specifically, a NAATI accredited translator provided a translation of the bank statement rather than the original rough translation. The NAATI translator did not translate the transaction as ‘Purchase-Card System’ but rather ‘Electronic transfer to Parsian Card Number’. In this translation both transactions are similarly annotated. The delegate’s other concern, namely the inconsistency between claims was also clarified in the submission by stating that the applicant’s statements were incorrectly translated by suggesting that there was a difference between the mechanisms of payment he had adopted. The bank statement supports this view and as such leads me to accept the explanation.

5. The delegate raised the issue of the amount of money the applicant paid to get in and out of Iran being equal to the amount that country information states it costs to only exit Iran. It is not clear upon what basis the delegate made the conclusion that the price would be substantially different. It could be that the money was used to remove the applicant from the black list, a single action that would allow him to both enter and exit or simply exit. Without further information I cannot conclude that the amount the applicant paid could be a factor in undermining his original claim.

6. The delegate added that it would be logical that any payment made would be settled prior to the applicant’s arrival rather than before. While this statement has some merit, as it would seem logical for a business that works on bribery to operate with an upfront payment model it is not illogical that it did not, but rather less likely or unlikely.

7. In summary the evidence provided by the applicant paints a picture of a high risk endeavour was he to return. The motivation for him to take those risks was identified by the delegate in their decision at [44] as not being convincing.

   Additionally, I consider it unlikely that the visa holder who claims to fear for his safety would be prepared to travel through the airport where he would encounter the Iranian authorities, his alleged persecutors, who he claims know about him and are actively seeking him when he has not provided any money that would apparently guarantee his safe passage.

   The delegate applied this as further reasoning to question whether any payment at all had been made to a fixer.

8. In considering the motivation of the applicant I note that he was quite explicit in his reasons for returning, namely that he feared losing his parents to ill health. Considering that the applicant left Iran without notifying his parents, seeing them for what may be the last time is a strong motivator. In such circumstances regard should be given to the credibility of the applicant and the claims they make of the evasive measures undertaken with an eye to the question of whether the motivation justifies the risks. This should be undertaken with the greatest of caution for the inherent risks that arise from projecting a decision maker’s concept of courage, necessity, motivation or risk upon another whose unique life journey informs how such much weight is placed on each.

9. The applicant’s credibility was not questioned at the protection visa stage. As far as is evidenced from the cancellation decision the applicant’s credibility was questioned for reasons that I have demonstrated as standing on thin ground. As such what remains is a credible applicant who provided detailed information on how he evaded security entering Iran and how he maintained a low profile including not seeing his son, not going to public places and only meeting with close family while staying at his [relative’s] vacant property. I find that the applicant’s motivation to return is strong and when considered alongside the measures he undertook while in Iran suggests a calculated risk versus reward approach that does not undermine his claims of fearing return to Iran.

10. As the applicant has provided detailed information and sufficient supporting documentation on the way he went about accessing the fixer and what he was instructed to do I find that the applicant did use a fixer to return to Iran. I also accept that his motivation was strong and the risks he took were calculated and as such his return when considered in its entirety does not undermine his original claims of there being a court summons which may have led to his arrest upon return or of being pursued by the Iranian authorities more generally.

    Claimed inconsistency over details around his marriage to his first wife

11. In the NOICC the delegate added:

    Additionally, I note in your protection application you stated that your former wife had advised you in 2012 that the authorities had raided the house that you shared and had taken your computer and other documents. In the statutory declaration you provided in support of [Ms A’s] application you stated that you had ceased living with your former wife in 2010. This contradicts the information you provided with your protection application. This leads me to have further doubts about the information you provided in support of your protection application.

12. The applicant’s explanation is that he co-owned the house along with his then wife (they had not divorced at that time) but that he was no longer living with her. That authorities went to his registered home in 2012 while he stated he had stopped living with his ex-wife in 2010 is not illogical or inconsistent with his claims. This is not an unusual situation in circumstances where a marriage is breaking apart. I find that this ground for cancellation has not been made out.

13. I find that the three grounds identified by the Minister’s delegate have not been established such that I have reached a real state of satisfaction that incorrect information was provided. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was no non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. It follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise. 

14. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act, it follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

    DECISION

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

    Denis Dragovic
    Senior 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.