1731357 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 5835

1731357 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5835 (19 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1731357

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Iraq

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:19 June 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 19 June 2019 at 3:58pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – cancellation – Protection visa – stateless – incorrect information provided in protection application – credible witness –applicant was a citizen of Iraq from 2009 – genuine and fundamental misunderstanding of Iraqi documentation – mental health – significant and serious health issues – lower standard of care in Iraq – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 111

Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.41, Schedule 2

CASES

MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the delegate found the applicant had provided incorrect information in his application for protection, and that the factors in favour of cancellation outweighed those against. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal.  

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 June 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Standard) and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

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 in that the applicant is said to have given or provided incorrect answers in his protection application.

9. The decision record states that the delegate found the applicant to have provided incorrect answers in his application for protection and attached statutory declaration when he said he was stateless, that his spouse and children were stateless, that he was of adverse interest to the Al Mahdi army, a militia group in Iraq. The decision record particularises the incorrect answers that the delegate considered the applicant had given and on this basis the decision to cancel was made.

10. The applicant’s representative responded to the Notice in a number of emails to the Department. These included a discussion of the applicant’s circumstances and family history, medical reports and letters in relation to the applicant’s physical and mental health issues and letters and reports of the applicant’s son’s medical issues and travel to Iran for surgery.

11. On the Department file there is also an international treaties obligation clearance letter.

12. To the Tribunal the applicant provided a number of documents including medical reports and a report in relation the motor vehicle accident the applicant suffered [in] 2019. He provided to me at hearing his Australian titre de voyage.

13. I spoke to the applicant at hearing. In conducting the hearing I provided for the applicant’s vulnerability given his vison loss and mental health issues. Despite his obvious distress, I found the applicant to be an entirely credible witness.

14. There was not any attempt, in my view, of the applicant to deceive. Indeed, as below, the most damning information the Department cites in the decision was provided by the applicant himself with his visa application in March 2012.

15. I accept much of what the applicant has claimed. It appears well supported in country information and in the documents the applicant has provided.

16. The applicant explained that he had provided all of his original documents when he sought protection in 2012. He said he had held an Iraqi ID that was issued by the civil status in Iraq, and had provided all of his Iraqi and Kuwaiti documents. He explained that the change since his application for protection on 20 June 2012 were that his wife and children were able to get, through his wife’s mother, Iraqi citizenship. He said that because he had already departed Iraq, he was not able to get one. He explained that his wife’s mother was Iraqi and had been able to apply for his wife to be granted Iraqi citizenship, and on that basis his children were granted Iraqi citizenship. This appears consistent with Iraqi law that a person is considered Iraqi if they are born to an Iraqi mother (although there are limits to a woman’s ability to confer Iraqi citizenship if the child is born outside Iraq).[1] When it was raised with him that the national identity cards for his wife and children were issued prior to 2013 he became confused. Similarly, when discussing the 2009 national identity card issued to him, he was confused. I explained my understanding that these cards tended to indicate that the holder was a national or citizen of Iraq. He said this was not the case. I explained that the information I had read was that national ID cards were issued to nationals.[2]

    [1] Article 3, Iraqi Official Gazette Issue 4019 dated March 7, 2006, No.26, accessed at . This repealed Law No. (46) of 1963 - Iraqi Nationality; UNHCR, Background Note on Gender Equality, Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2014, 7 March 2014,

    [2] Landinfo, Report Iraq: Travel documents and other identity documents, 16 December 2015, UNHCR Country Advice for the RRT, 2010, IRQ37184, Iraq Bidoons, 9 September

17. I note here that contemporaneous information from UNHCR indicated that

    Despite the fact that a stateless person formally needs to prove that he or she was registered during the 1957 Iraqi national census to be again registered, the relevant Iraqi authorities are reported to have maintained a certain degree of flexibility regarding the group of Bidouns… Bidouns who were granted the Iraqi citizenship and enjoy the rights of the Iraqis are estimated to be 6,955 families (47,417 individuals) mainly living in the southern part of Iraq.

    Those families are reported having acquired Iraqi nationality at the time of the former regime and possess the Iraqi ID and nationality certificates. They enjoy the same rights as all Iraqis, although many of them are reported to live in bad conditions and need assistance, mainly in terms of shelter… The Bidouns who were not granted the Iraqi citizenship constitute the majority and live out of the city as “nomads”, scattered mainly in the desert at the border of Basra with Samawa and Thi-Qar Governorates. These Bidouns do not hold Iraqi ID cards, nationality certificates or PDS cards, their children are not registered and they do not have access to health facilities, they marry according to their tribal customs and do not register their marriages… These Bidouns seem to ignore the possibility for them to regularize their situation, while others have rejected the Iraqi nationality and continue to claim their Kuwaiti origins and rights in Kuwait. They are estimated by the Residency and Nationality Directorate to be 5,430 families (54,500 individuals). [3]

    [3] UNHCR Country Advice for the RRT, 2010, IRQ37184, Iraq Bidoons, 9 September >

    He also said that the national identity card issued to him in 2004 was a forgery. He noted this card said he was married, when he had in fact been married only in 2006, and it included an incorrect governorate stamp of [City 1], rather than [City 2] governorate where he had been living. Having studied the copy of the 2004 identity card I consider that these points do appear to raise concerns with the genuineness of this document. The applicant explained that his father had organised this document for him. He explained that he had had very little involvement in this process. Culturally, he had deferred to his father.

18. He said that this card had expired in 2009 and his father had arranged another card for him, the card issued in 2009, which he said his father had arranged for this information to be inserted onto the civil registry. It was issued correctly he said, but with incorrect data. He said it was an original true document that was issued with a proper stamp. I asked if that meant that at least in 2009 he was an Iraqi citizen. He explained that he was able to acquire this document but that to be considered an Iraqi citizen a person must have a certificate of citizenship with an Iraqi passport, which he was not able to get. I noted that his wife and child were issued their national identity cards in 2009 and were able to obtain Iraqi passports. He said that was true and they were the same as the one he was holding, but these did not entitle one to a passport, they had to get those in 2013 through his wife’s mother. He said that it was a difficult process that his wife and her mother had had to go through with a lawyer to get the certificate of Iraqi citizenship. I noted again that the information I had suggested that holding a (genuine) Iraqi ID card suggested the person was a citizen. He said that anyone in Iraq can hold an ID card, to be a citizen you need to hold a certificate of citizenship.

19. He said that his father had obtained Iraqi citizenship for one of his brothers about five years ago, but he knew very little about how this was done. He said he had never been able to because of his eye problem, he had always only used the identity cards he had provided.

20. I discussed with the applicant his titre de voyage, which shows entry and exit stamps to Basra for his return travel to Iraq from November 2014 to February 2015. I noted that despite these entry and exit stamps, the document did not hold an Iraqi visa, which may also tend to suggest that he was an Iraqi citizen. I explained that citizens of countries other than Iraq needed a visa to enter Iraq, and that only those born in and citizens of Iraq did not require a visa, even when entering on a ‘foreign passport’.[4] He said that when he had entered it was enough to show the personal ID with the foreign document and that would be enough to enter, and it was only in 2015 that stateless persons had to have a visa to enter Iraq. He said friends had told him after 2015 they needed a visa. I indicated I may not accept this. He then said that he was not sure, maybe they took pity on him, maybe the civil register his father had paid for him was genuine, he didn’t know. He said the border officers let him in on the id he showed. All he knew was that his father was able to pay a bribe and get his 2004 and 2009 documents, he doesn’t know if it is genuine or fake. I noted that s.111 provided that even if his non-compliance was not deliberate, the provisions applied and his visa may be liable to cancellation.

    [4]

21. Having carefully considered all of the information before me, I make the following findings:

    ·The country information I have had regard to supports, and I find, that holding a genuine Iraqi National Identity Card is evidence that the holder is a citizen of Iraq;

    ·The applicant acquired an Iraqi national identity card in 2004. Given the deficiencies he has identified, I accept that this document was most likely fraudulently obtained and contains incorrect information such that it is not a genuine identity document nor that it can establish his Iraqi citizenship;

    ·The applicant obtained a 2009 Iraqi national identity card, this time with the correct information, and the applicant indicated that as far as he was aware, this was a ‘genuine’ document in that it had been issued properly and contained all of his correct details. Whilst not free form doubt, this tends to support that from this time, the applicant was a citizen of Iraq;

    ·Further supporting this, the applicant was permitted to enter Iraq on the basis of presenting an Australian travel document and his 2009 Iraqi National Identity Card. This strongly supports the conclusion that the 2009 card was sufficient to establish his Iraqi citizenship at that time. I do not accept, on the country information, that a non-citizen would be permitted to enter Iraq at that time presenting only those documents;

    ·However, I believe the applicant when he indicated that he did not think he was a citizen of Iraq. The Bidoon have traditionally been considered stateless, indeed, this is what the name means. They have traditionally considered themselves, even when in Iraq, as having their home in Kuwait. I consider that the applicant is telling the truth when he says that his father organised his identity cards and the applicant does not know what took place;

    ·I find that, most probably without his clear knowledge, the applicant has been a citizen of Iraq since the issuing of his 2009 Identity Card. This conclusion is not free from doubt – the applicant appeared very convinced of his lived experience as a person without Iraqi citizenship, but this finding appears the most correct decision given the above findings;

    ·I find therefore that the applicant, most possibly inadvertently, provided incorrect information in his application for protection and attached statutory declaration when he declared himself and his family to be stateless, and I find that from 2009 he was a citizen of Iraq.

22. The visa is therefore liable to cancellation.

23. However, I make the following additional points, which have also been taken into account below.

24. The cancellation decision maker has analysed the information as if the documents provided by the applicant’s wife in relation to the applicant are new information. They are not. the applicant provided copies of his 2004 and 2009 Iraqi identity cards in his initial application for [protection]. The protection obligation evaluation officer acknowledged these documents, but did not appear to take them into account or consider their impact on that officer’s findings that the applicant was at that time, stateless. If the Department had devoted more time to analysis of what the applicant had presented at that time, the current situation may not have arisen.

25. Secondly, the protection obligation evaluation officer found the applicant was owed protection on the basis of his clams to fear harm in Iraq because of his father’s profile and the applicant’s selling of [certain goods]. I do not accept that the above findings disprove these claims because they are not based on his claimed statelessness, nor do I accept that the return travels of the applicant to Iraq disproves his claims. This is logically incoherent – it appears to me obvious that a person may be in very great subjective and objective fear of being harmed, such that she or he may engage Australia’s protection obligations, and yet choose to return, as did this man, for very significant reasons. I understand that the return of a person to the country in which they claim they will be harmed raises suspicions that their claims are not true, but that is the level they rise to – suspicions. Return travel, without more, does not in most cases logically mean that the person’s claims cannot be true, only that they may not be true. In my view, something that may not be true is not capable of engaging the legislative provisions of subdivision C, division 3 of part 2 of the Act.

26. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice in relation only to his claims that he and his family were stateless.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

27. 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).

28. 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.

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

30. In this case, there are very clear factors which militate against the visa being cancelled. These were also before the delegate.

31. The correct information in this case is that the applicant, his wife and children are, I have found, citizens of Iraq. As above, this leads to the breach. I give this significant weight towards the visa being cancelled.

32. Having considered the Protection Obligation Assessment, which found the essential and significant reason for the harm feared was his membership of the Particular Social Group of ‘[goods] vendors in Iraq’, I do not accept that the decision to grant the protection visa was based wholly or partly, on the incorrect information he had given. A fair reading of the Protection Obligation Assessment indicates that the applicant’s statelessness is not directly, or even partly relevant. As above, I do not accept that his return travel to Iraq, in the circumstances he has claimed, lead to his claims being untrue. It appears to me critical that cancellation decisions are only taken where the incorrect information or bogus document is directly and demonstrably relevant to the original decision to grant the visa. Here, it was not. I therefore give this factor significant weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

1. In this case, the non-compliance, I accept, was most likely inadvertent in that the applicant appears to have a genuine and fundamental misunderstanding of Iraqi documentation, and I accept that his documentation was obtained by his father without his clear knowledge or understanding. Considered fairly, this submission is understandable. At the hearing I attempted to show the applicant documents. He is, it is accepted, legally blind and has very minimal [vision]. At the time of obtaining his identity cards, his vision may have been slightly, but not significantly, better.  It is not surprising that he relied on his father and did not question documents his father acquired for him. as above, I have not accepted that the return travel to Iraq was part of the non-compliance here, but even if it was, I accept his evidence that he engaged in this travel to assist in the medical care of his child. I accept his evidence that he was afraid of being harmed on return to Iraq, but felt compelled to do so through concern for his child and to guarantee that his child be provided with the appropriate medical care. I consider these reasons for return reasonable and as above, I do not accept that the return travel for these reasons is part of the breach. Whilst I have found the applicant has breached, the circumstances here are strongly compassionate, and I have accepted the non-compliance was most likely unwitting on the part of the applicant. I therefore give this factor some weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

2. The present circumstances of the applicant are dire. He is legally blind, requires ongoing treatment, he suffers significant mental health problems, exacerbated by the cancellation, and he was involved in a motor vehicle accident [in] 2019 where, as a blind pedestrian, he was hit by a car when crossing the street, causing [various injuries]. He is receiving a good standard of care in Australia for these [issues]. There is no doubt that the standard of care he would experience in Iraq would be lower.[5] Of most concern to me is the stigma attached to mental health in Iraq. The applicant suffers severe depressive illness, anxiety and panic disorder. I am not confident that he would receive adequate treatment for these illnesses in Iraq where mental illness is stigmatised. Whilst there are medical services for his physical health needs, it is clear from the material that these would be at a lower standard of care than Australia.  The applicant also spoke of the very great assistance and support he has received from [Organisation 1]. As far as I can see there is no comparable organisation in Iraq. If returned to Iraq, he would not have access to funding [to] which he is entitled, having suffered a road accident in Australia. Cancellation, and the return of the applicant to Iraq, would lead to a marked decrease in care and support for the applicant to such a degree that I consider this provides a strong humanitarian factor for him to remain in Australia and continue to receive the care and support he has received here. I give this factor significant weight in favour of the visa not being cancelled.

   [5]

3. There is no evidence that the applicant has been uncooperative to the Department, nor that there are other instances of non-compliance by the applicant. It has been some years since the non-compliance. There is no evidence of any breaches of the law by the applicant and I note that he appears to have been a victim of a road traffic accident in Australia, and I consider that the Australian community owes the applicant a level of care for this misadventure whilst he was a member of the Australian community. The applicant has not contributed in any significant way to the Australian community. These factors I consider tend to give some little weight to the visa not being cancelled.

4. If the visa remained cancelled, there is some doubt in my mind whether the applicant would, or could, given his medical issues, be removed to Iraq.  Related to this is the question of whether any international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation. The applicant would return as a Sunni to an area of Iraq in which Shi’a are in the majority. In its most recent report, DFAT states:

   DFAT assesses that individuals face a low risk of official discrimination on the basis of their ethnicity, but that individuals may face a moderate risk of societal discrimination if they live in an area where their ethnicity is in the minority.

   …

   After the removal of Saddam Hussein and the (Sunni-dominated) Ba’ath Party from government, many Sunnis felt marginalised. This was exacerbated by the perception among the majority Shi’a population that the Sunni community was associated with ISIL, and by the government’s inability to assist Sunnis attempting to flee ISIL. While the government has worked hard to protect civilians in the fight against ISIL, it has at times failed to respond firmly to acts of retribution against Sunnis by the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) or the PMF. These factors have intensified tensions between Sunni and Shi’a communities in Iraq.

   Sunnis, including IDPs, continue to report that PMF groups harass them, accuse them of supporting ISIL and physically harm them. Sunnis report similar behaviour towards them, although to a lesser extent, by the ISF in some areas. The US State Department and international human rights groups report government-aligned forces targeting Sunni males trying to flee ISIL-controlled areas, and preventing Sunnis from leaving and entering government-controlled areas. PMF-linked militia groups have looted and destroyed Sunni-owned properties following the expulsion of ISIL and, in some areas, prevented displaced Sunnis from returning to their homes. Outside ISIL-controlled areas, Sunnis have faced harassment and discrimination in the form of more intrusive inspections at checkpoints, and the provision of poorer quality services in Sunni areas.

   DFAT assesses that, outside areas recently controlled by ISIL, Sunnis face a low risk of societal violence on the basis of their religion. DFAT assesses that Sunnis face a moderate risk of official and societal discrimination in areas where they are a minority. The risk of discrimination varies according to an individual’s local influence and connections.[6]

   [6] DFAT Country Information Report – Iraq, 9 October 2018, 3.3, 3.35 - 3.37

5. I note that these concerns would be exacerbated by the applicant’s mental health and blindness, which would represent significant vulnerabilities to any potential harm.

6. I have some concerns that the applicant, as a Sunni returning to a Shia dominated area, would be in need of protection. Internal relocation alternatives may not be available to him given his blindness and mental health issues. There is therefore a very real question in this case whether the applicant could and would be removed from Australia and may engage our protection obligations given his minority ethnicity status to his point of return and his very significant and serious health issues. I give these factors significant weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

7. 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. Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.

   DECISION

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

   Sean Baker
   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.