1727363 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 1754

1727363 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 1754 (29 March 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1727363

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Stateless

MEMBER:Nicole Burns

DATE:29 March 2019

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 29 March 2019 at 2:00pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – cancellation – protection visa – Stateless – incorrect answers – Faili Kurd – brother’s Iranian citizenship – question of applicant’s Iranian citizenship status – how brother obtained Iranian citizenship – not indicative of father’s or applicant’s citizenship – grounds for cancellation not made out – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5, 98, 99, 100, 101, 107, 108, 109, 375A, 438

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

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 provided incorrect answers in his Protection visa application.  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 18 October 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi (Persian) and English languages.

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

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

   Non-disclosure certificate

6. The Departmental file contains a non-disclosure certificate dated 20 November 2017 certifying that the disclosure of redacted information on the file would be contrary to the public interest for a number of reasons, including to ensure the personal safety and privacy of Departmental officers.  The Tribunal does not consider the certificate is valid because it was issued under the wrong provision: that is under s.375A of the Act instead of s.438 of the Act. 

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. On the Departmental file is a copy of the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) dated 15 June 2017 which advised the applicant that his visa may be cancelled under s.109 because of concerns that he did not comply with sections 101(b) (visa applications to be correct) of the Act.  He was advised to respond in writing.  The applicant provided a written response to the Department dated 25 July 2017.   

10. 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?

11. 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 (visa applications to be correct) as follows.

    Section 101(b) - visa applications to be correct

12. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice in relation to s.101(b) was that the applicant had provided incorrect information in relation to his Protection visa application, lodged on 27 September 2010, as set out in the NOICC, as follows.

13. Specifically, in response to a question in Part B of the Protection visa application form (Form 866) the applicant provided details of his parents [and siblings].  As well, in response to question 19 of Part C of the same form, the applicant answered ‘stateless’ to the question of his citizenship at birth; ‘N/A’ to the question about his current citizenship (question 20) and as to how, when and why he lost his citizenship (question 23); and stated that he is seeking protection so he does not have to return to ‘Iran & Iraq’. 

14. As well, as set out in the NOICC, in response to a number of questions (42 to 46) about why he left that country and his fears on return (among other things) the applicant referred to an undated statement he provided in support of his Request for Refugee Status Assessment (RSA) on 13 March 2010.  In that statement he claimed, in summary, as follows:

    ·He fears returning to Iran.

    ·His parents – who were born in Iraq but are Faili Kurds – were deported to Iran in approximately 1980 as Iraqis believed Faili Kurds were Iranian however Iranians considered them Iraqis: they were stuck in the middle and became stateless.

    ·None of his family have ever held Iranian green cards or white cards.  His father applied for a green card, but was not given one.

    ·Iran is not a safe place for Faili Kurds because they are stateless and not accepted by the authorities and local Iranians. They get abused by the Basij and are not treated fairly like other Iranians. They are not given rights, citizenship, and health insurance and cannot buy properties.

    ·Because he left Iran illegally if he returned the authorities would think he was a spy and he could be jailed for life or killed.  He would have no protection from the authorities or anyone in Iran.

    ·Because he is stateless and has no identity he has no nationality.  He would be persecuted because of his ethnicity if he was to return.

15. The applicant’s Protection visa was granted on 30 September 2010 on the basis of his claims submitted in this statement and his Protection visa application. 

16. However subsequently (as also set out in the NOICC), in the course of assessing the identity of two others – [Mr A] ([date of birth deleted]) and [Ms B] ([date of birth deleted]) the Department’s Identity Division discovered the following information:

    ·[Mr A] has Iranian citizenship; he served in the Iranian military and completed compulsory education in Iran; and he has a brother in [Australia] – ‘[the Applicant] [date of birth deleted]’.  This indicates that [Mr A] is the child of Iranian citizens.

    ·[Mr A]’s family details provided match the family details of the applicant provided in his entry interview, which included listing his brother as ‘[Mr A] [date of birth deleted]’.

    ·[Ms B] listed no siblings and no family in Australia; her parents’ names are ‘substantially the same’ as [the applicant] and [Mr A]: that is, there is a variation in their father’s details, however the mother is listed with the same age and name, as follows:

Applicant’s father	[Mr C] ([Year 1])
[Mr A’s] father	[Mr C] ([Year 2])
[Ms B’s] father	[variation of Mr C] ([Date of birth 3])
Applicant’s mother	[Ms D] ([Year 3])
[Mr A’s] mother	[variation of Ms D] ([date/month/Year 2])
[Ms B’s] mother	[Ms D] ([date/month/Year 3])

1. The NOICC also recorded that [Ms B] provided her shenasnameh (Iranian Birth certificate/life book), carte melli (Iranian national identity card) and extracts of her marriage certificate.  This shows, it was stated, that her parents are Iranian citizens. Following an assessment which included this information, the Department’s Identity Division concluded as follows:

   a.[Mr A] is the applicant’s brother.  As [Mr A] is an Iranian national, then Iranian nationality law dictates that his full blood brother (the applicant) is also a ‘fully franchised’ Iranian national.

   b.They have strong reason to believe [Ms B] is the applicant’s sister and [Mr A]’s sister.

   c.‘[Surname of Ms B]’ can be changed to ‘[Surname of Mr A]’ in Persian: the addition of a small dot underneath the letter ‘[deleted]’ changes it to a ‘[a different letter]’.  There is strong evidence that the applicant and [Mr A] adjusted their surnames to avoid association with their sister, [Ms B], a fully documented Iranian national.

   d.There is sufficient information to believe that [Ms B], [Mr A] and the applicant are siblings, evidenced by their parents’ names, their close relationship after arriving in Australia, and the ease with which ‘[Surname of Mr A]’ can be changed to ’[Surname of Ms B]’ and vice versa.

2. The NOICC then goes on to refer to country information that indicates that under Iranian law (Article 976) a child born to an Iranian father acquires citizenship at birth, regardless of where the child is born.  The delegate states that as country information shows that the applicant’s father is an Iranian citizen, it follows that the applicant would have acquired Iranian citizenship at birth.  Therefore it is concluded that the applicant was not stateless as claimed when he applied for protection and that he provided incorrect answers in Part C of Form 866 in his application for a Protection visa in relation to the answers set out earlier. 

3. The Tribunal notes that the information from the NOICC referred to in the preceding paragraphs was also contained in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal on review. 

4. The Tribunal notes that the notice is unclear as to what basis the Department’s identity division discovered the applicant’s brother was an Iranian citizen.  However the Departmental file contains a note titled ‘referral for cancellation of visa’ [dated]  March 2016 which indicates that the applicant’s brother had allegedly stated on multiple occasions that he had Iranian citizenship and had attended  [months] of compulsory military training in Iran prior to being discharged after a serious [injury] in his entry interview recording.

5. In the applicant’s letter sent to the Department in response to the NOICC the applicant states that [Ms B] is not his sister; there is a high probability of people having the same first and last name in their culture; all information he provided at the time of the Protection visa application was true and correct; they would need to discuss the issue about his brother’s information with his brother ([Mr A]); his brother needs to provide an explanation about how he obtained forged documents; he suggested perhaps his brother felt that he needed them, possibly due to fear of being caught prior to arriving in Australia as fleeing Iran would incur the death penalty for a Kurdish Faili with no papers; he is stateless and has no claim to Iran; and that no incorrect answers were given to obtain his Protection visa.  The applicant also questioned why he would come to Australia by boat and risk his life if he is an (Iranian) citizen.

6. In response to the notice the applicant also provided an article (unsourced) about research indicating how families with common Anglo-Saxon full names (first and last) are surprisingly unique as well as articles about the history of the Basij and Faili Kurds in Iran and the use of forged Iranian passports.  

7. The Tribunal discussed the relevant contents of the NOICC with the applicant at the hearing.  He disagreed that there was non-compliance as set out in the NOICC.  He said he is stateless, and was at the time of the Protection visa application.  He said that he was born in Iran although his parents were born in Iraq and had been deported to Iran many years prior.  His parents were unable to obtain citizenship or Iranian identity documents for themselves or their children in Iran.  He only attended [a few] years of primary school.  His parents were farmers.  He has a sister and a brother who live with his parents in Iran and help with the farm work. 

8. The applicant told the Tribunal that he came to Australia by boat with his brother - [Mr A].  He also came by boat with a woman called [Ms B] who became a friend (they lived together for some time, with others, in Australia); however she is not his sister.  He has not seen her for around three or four years.  He had no idea that she had told the Department her parents’ names were similar to his parents and speculated that perhaps she had used ‘illegal’ documents as well (he did not elaborate). 

9. The applicant said as far as he knew his brother was ‘like him’ and did not have any Iranian citizenship or identity documents.  The applicant said that he does not know why his brother bought the documents (noting that he is stateless so it would be the only way he could have obtained them) but speculated that it could have been because he needed identity documents to be admitted to hospital for treatment in Iran after his [injury] years ago, before they left the country.  The applicant said as a result of the [injury] his brother suffered brain damage and is quick to anger and very difficult.  When he received the NOICC the applicant said he asked his brother about the matter, however he became angry, picked a fight and did not answer any of his questions or provide any explanations.  They were living together at the time but the applicant moved out shortly after and nowadays they rarely speak. 

10. At hearing the representative made the following key submissions relevant to the question of whether the grounds for cancellation have been made out in the applicant’s case:

    a.Suspicion that the applicant is not stateless is insufficient to reach a decision that there was non-compliance, as the decision maker needs to be positively satisfied that the applicant is an Iranian national.  In the applicant’s case the Department has not provided documentary evidence that the applicant is an Iranian national and the ‘evidence’ they rely on relates to information about other people from which they have speculated that the applicant is an Iranian national. 

    b.It is possible that one child in a family may have been able to obtain Iranian citizenship – in this case the applicant’s brother, [Mr A] - however that does not mean that the entire family are granted (Iranian) citizenship. 

    c.The fact that the applicant is stateless is a difficult status to prove.

    d.The applicant has presented as a credible witness and a number of references have been provided which attest to his character.

    e.The applicant’s brother is mentally unwell and refuses to cooperate with the applicant on this matter.  They are not aware of his particular protection claims and have only guessed that he may have obtained Iranian citizenship and identity documents in Iran.  Again, whatever the situation his brother faces should not affect the applicant and is not evidence that the applicant is an Iranian national/not stateless.

11. The representative provided to the Tribunal a number of letters of support from the applicant’s friends and customers with respect to his [business] in Australia.

12. The Tribunal has considered the information contained in the NOICC, the applicant’s written response to the NOICC, his oral evidence to the Tribunal and the representative’s submissions on this matter in assessing whether the grounds for cancelling the visa is made out.  In doing so, the key question to consider is whether there is sufficient evidence to reach a real state of satisfaction that incorrect information was provided.  It is well established that civil law concepts such as onus and standard of proof are generally inappropriate in the administrative law context.  However, where, as in cancellation cases, the existence of facts grounds the exercise of a statutory power, the onus of establishing those facts is on the Minister (or on review, the Tribunal).  In Zhao v MIMA (Zhao), 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 because 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.[1]

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

13. While that case was concerned with cancellation under s.116, the Court’s comments are equally applicable to s.109 cancellation, as in this case. 

14. The applicant states in his Protection visa application, response to the NOICC and his oral evidence to the Tribunal that he is stateless and although born in Iran, is not an Iranian citizen.  He claims his parents, who were born in Iraq, were expelled to Iran, but were never able to obtain identity documents or Iranian nationality. 

15. The applicant does not dispute that [Mr A] is his brother.  At hearing he was unsure why his brother had provided Iranian identity documents to the Department as alleged in the NOICC, but speculated that his brother may have bought them in Iran, possibly to access medical treatment following his [injury] there.  The applicant told the Tribunal his brother has failed to provide him with an explanation, despite his efforts, and as a consequence refuses to speak to him.  The applicant attributes his non-cooperation in large part to his brother’s acquired brain injury and related mental health problems, stemming from [an] accident in Iran a number of years ago. 

16. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s brother (and his alleged friend, [Ms B]) failed to give oral or written evidence to the Tribunal about this matter, to confirm his claims.  It is submitted that the applicant’s brother is mentally unstable, and does not want to cooperate on this matter: a result of what appears to be an acquired brain injury (ABI) as a result of the applicant’s brother being involved in an accident in Iran.  Medical reports contained on the applicant’s brother’s Departmental file[2] related to his application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (Subclass 790) which the Tribunal obtained from the Department confirm that his brother suffered from an ABI and other related problems following a head trauma from an accident in Iran.

    [2] [Source deleted]

17. The Tribunal notes there is information on the Departmental file (in relation to the applicant’s visa cancellation) in the form of an internal email which states, broadly, that the applicant’s brother has provided copies of his Iranian ID documents and that he claims to have been born a stateless person, but was granted Iranian citizenship when he was [age] after his stateless father applied for it for him.  No further explanation is given as to how this could have happened and it is noted that his father remains stateless. The note goes on to state that the applicant’s brother was found to be owed protection on complementary protection grounds but that his circumstances were very specific to himself and his personal history.   

1. On the applicant’s brother’s Departmental file[3] related to his application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (Subclass 790), which the Tribunal obtained from the Department, is a copy of [Mr A’s] written statement[4] in which he states that his parents are stateless; that when he was [a young child] his father applied for his citizenship for him, which was granted; and he [is] the only child in his family who has citizenship.  This shows that the applicant’s brother, although claiming to be an Iranian citizen, has not claimed that his father (or other family members) are (or were).  There are copies of [Mr A’s] Iranian driver’s licence and National Identity Card on that file which show that he is an Iranian citizen: these documents list his father’s name but no further information is provided about his father, including his nationality.

   [3] [Source deleted]

   [4] [Date deleted]

2. The Tribunal acknowledges the delegate’s concern that according to the Department’s identity division the applicant’s brother is an Iranian national, which raises the question of whether the applicant’s father, and therefore the applicant, was also an Iranian national at the time of the visa application.  However, even if the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s brother is an Iranian national, it does not necessarily follow that his father is an Iranian citizen or that he acquired Iranian citizenship through his father (as indicated in the NOICC, with reference to the relevant law in Iran) and by extension that the applicant is (or was at the time of his Protection visa application) an Iranian citizen.  It is not clear which law the  Department’s Identity Division relies upon in reaching its conclusion – as set out in the notice (and at paragraph 16 above) – that as [Mr A] is an Iranian national, then Iranian nationality law dictates that his full blood brother (the applicant) is also a ‘fully franchised’ Iranian national.  Having regard to Article 976 of the Iranian law[5], as referred to in the notice, it is clear that persons considered Iranian subjects include those whose fathers are Iranians, however there is nothing that supports the proposition that one is a ‘fully franchised’ Iranian national if their full blood brother is. 

   [5] Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 23 May 1928, last amended on 31 July 2006,

3. The Tribunal notes that Iranian law does indicate that a person can obtain Iranian nationality in certain circumstances, including people whose fathers are not Iranian, although it notes that they need to be over 18 (Art 979)[6], which does not fit with [Mr A’s] claims to the Department that his father obtained citizenship for him when he was [age]. Nonetheless the applicant thinks his brother was able to obtain citizenship somehow, possibly through a bribe.  Although country information indicates that Iranian identity documents include sophisticated security features and would be difficult to manufacture for fraudulent use, there are reports of forged passports (for example)[7] and the Tribunal considers it is possible that the applicant’s brother was able to obtain Iranian identity documents by paying money to do so.     

   [6]

   [7] DFAT Country Information Report Iran, 7 June 2018 at 5.32

4. For these reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied to the requisite level, as required by Zhao, that the applicant is an Iranian citizen on the basis that his brother has provided documents evidencing his Iranian nationality.  On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the grounds for cancellation (that he provided incorrect information that he was stateless and feared harm for that reason) on this basis have been made out. 

5. The Tribunal has considered if [Ms B] is the applicant’s sister and if so, whether that means the applicant is an Iranian citizen, which was the other reason set out in the notice as to why the delegate considered the applicant to be an Iranian citizen and therefore not stateless at the time of his visa application.  It acknowledges the delegate’s concern given the similarities in their respective parents’ names and dates of birth as set out earlier in the decision record.  However whilst very similar they are not an exact match.  In his response to the NOICC and at hearing the applicant was adamant that [Ms B] is not his sister, but a friend whom he met on the boat en route to Australia.  This was in contrast to the applicant including [Mr A] as his brother when asked to set out his family composition at the Protection visa application stage, as well as at his entry interview.  For these reasons the Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant and [Ms B] have lived together at times in Australia, but this, and the fact that their parents’ names provided to the Department are very similar, is not probative evidence that they are siblings. 

6. The Tribunal notes that even if [Ms B] is the applicant’s sister and is an Iranian national, it does not necessarily follow that the applicant is an Iranian citizen, now or at the time of application, given that there are other ways to acquire Iranian citizenship, including through marriage for women. 

7. Taking into account these considerations, including the applicant’s presentation as a credible witness at hearing, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied to the requisite level as per Zhao that the applicant provided incorrect information in the visa application (and accompanying statutory declaration) that he was stateless and feared harm for that reason.  On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the grounds for cancellation on this basis have been made out.    

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

   DECISION

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

   Nicole Burns
   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.