1732190 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 5415

1732190 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 5415 (11 December 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1732190

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Libya

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:11 December 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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 11 December 2018 at 11:10am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – cancellation – protection visa – Libya – incorrect information – return to home country – father’s health – particular social group – home raided by armed group – business owner – husband of academic – subject of detainment – fears intimidation of Kafir – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101. 107. 109

CASES

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
McDonald v D-G of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Sullivan v CASA(2014) 226 FCR 555
Swan Television & Radio Broadcasters Ltd v ABT (1985) 8 FCR 291
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).

   Background and Evidence

2. The applicant is [age]-year-old national of Libya. He is married with [a number of] children. He first arrived in Australia [in] February 2011 as a dependent on his wife’s [student] visa. He was granted further student visas on 29 July 2011 and 19 March 2013.

3. On 28 February 2013, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa and included his wife and his two [children] in the application. On 3 February 2014, they were granted protection visas. [Other] children have been born in Australia following the grant of the visas.

   The information

4. In his application for a protection visa, in response to questions 43-48 in Form 866C, the applicant referred to an attached statutory declaration, dated 11 April 2013. A covering submission, dated 22 April 2013, was also provided by his then representative, outlining his claims for protection. The applicant’s protection claims are summarised as follows.

5. The applicant was the owner of a [a] company in Libya with ties to the former regime of Muamar Gaddafi. His wife was [an Occupation 1] at  [a workplace] and an active member of the [workplace] Committee. She received a scholarship, enabling her to study in Australia.

6. The applicant, his wife and two children came to Australia just before the outbreak of the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’ uprising, which eventually deposed the Gaddafi regime. Concerned about his family, the applicant went back to Libya [in] February 2012 to find that his home was raided by an armed group affiliated with Alshaheed Alaa Regiment. They were looking for his brothers [Mr A], [a] [ranking] in the ‘[defence]’ and [Mr B], who worked in the ‘[defence] forces’. The militia group arrested [Mr B], but the other [brothers] managed to escape. They also took his father and subjected him to interrogation on the charge of being an accomplice in hiding his fugitive brothers. In addition, they seized the equipment and machineries he used for his company. The applicant managed to get his father released before returning to Australia [in] March 2012.

7. The applicant, his wife and his children returned to Libya [in] November 2012 because of the continued harassment of his parents by the militias and elements of the new government. He found himself ‘identified’ upon his arrival at Tripoli airport and was subjected to five hours of ‘tormenting’ interrogation. He was accused of hostile activities and contacts with groups supporting the former regime. He was ‘charged’ with hostility towards the Salafist groups and was asked about his two visits to [Country 1]. He was then handed to Alshaheed Alaa Regiment and was taken blindfolded to a security prison and detained for more than 35 days. Upon being released, his passport was seized and he was ordered not to leave before the conclusion of the investigation into his family. He suffered mentally during that period as a result.

8. On his return home, he found his wife and children had made their way to his parent’s home without problems. However, his brother was still under arrest and held in Tripoli, while his other brothers had been able to escape to [Country 2] and [Country 3]. On one occasion, his wife and children were nearly killed when the car she was travelling in was shot at for refusing to stop.

9. [In] February 2013, his wife’s father used his connection within the regiment as a [position] in the [government], to ‘steal’ his passport back. [In] February 2013, the applicant, his wife and children left without interception and returned to Australia.

10. The applicant stated that he fears persecutory treatment and intimidation as he will be regarded as a Kafir or a non-believer due to the rise of Islamic militias. He also fears harm as a business owner who benefited under the former regime, as well as being the husband of an academic who served on the former regime’s Revolutionary Committee.

    The notice

11. On 17 February 2017, in accordance with s.107 of the Act, the applicant was issued with a Notification of Intention to Consider Cancellation under Section 109 (NOICC). The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act.

12. The NOICC set out the applicant’s responses to questions 42-48 in his Form 866C, his statutory declaration of 11 April 2013 and the contents of the covering submission by his then representative. The particulars of the non-compliance were in relation to the applicant’s voluntary return to Libya for a period of 28 days. This information emerged at the applicant’s Australian Citizenship interview on 1 September 2015, where he advised that he had travelled to [Country 2] in 2014, and presented his Libyan passport. The applicant’s passport demonstrated the following travels:

    ·     [In date] November 2014 he entered [Country 2]

    ·     [In date] November 2014 he exited [Country 2]

    ·     [In date] November 2014 he entered Libya

    ·     [In date] December 2014 he exited Libya

    ·     [In date] December 2014 he entered [Country 2]

    ·     [In date] December 2014 he exited [Country 2]

13. The NOICC stated that, as the applicant returned to Libya without apparent harm or impediment, his claims in his protection visa application in relation to his adverse profile and being wanted for arrest by the authorities, radical Islamists and the Libyan regime, were incorrect.

    The applicant’s response

14. On 3 March 2017, the applicant responded to the NOICC and provided the following information.

15. In a statement, dated 28 February 2017, the applicant asserted the truthfulness and accuracy of his claims and the information provided to the Department of Immigration in connection with his protection visa. The applicant stated that he went back to Libya because of his father’s serious health condition. He was forced to return at the risk of his safety and had to leave behind his pregnant wife and children. His father was admitted to intensive care at [a hospital and medical centre] and his condition did not allow him to leave the hospital. With the help of his friend, [Mr C], who works for the regiment of Ali Hasan Al-Jaber in Benghazi. He was able to gain entry into Libya via the border gate of [Country 2] outlet of [a location]. He arrived at the gate at 4 o’clock when there was no security or civil presence. The shift guard was waiting for him at the gate and allowed him to enter without security checks. He was then driven by [Mr D], who was an employee in the [Ministry], to the hospital. They drove through agricultural by-roads away from the checkpoints and the journey took more than 12 hours. He stayed for a few days and left in disguise. He returned via a private [company] plane in [a location], as the international roads and airports are destroyed and Maatike is the only functioning airport, controlled by the Islamic groups led by terrorists Abdulhakeem Balhaj and Khalid Al-Shareef. He also stated that the situation in Libya is ‘lethal and explosive’ as it is without ‘a law and constitution’ and ‘the militias are in hundreds subsisting on abduction, looting, disgracing the honour of girls and women and stealing the cars and homes’. There is no State protection and his return to Libya was a ‘great mistake’.

16. The applicant also submitted copies of Australian Citizenship Certificates issued in relation to two of his children, [Child 1] and [Child 2], who were born in Australia.

17. In a covering submission, dated 3 March 2017, the applicant’s then representative submitted that the Department had presented no direct evidence that the applicant had provided incorrect answers and referred to the applicant’s statement in response to the NOICC, dated 28 February 2017. In addition, it was submitted that cancelling the applicant’s protection visa would be in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations because Libyans with a pro-Gaddafi profile remain at a high risk of serious harm. Failed asylum seekers cannot be returned directly to Libya and consideration should be given to the Australian citizenship of the applicant’s two children.

18. On 14 March 2017, the applicant’s representative submitted the following additional documents to the Department:

    ·A medical report by [a doctor], dated [in] October 2014, stating that the applicant’s father suffers slurred speech and disorientation as a result of a [medical condition] and was admitted to hospital for 2 weeks.

    ·A list of medications prescribed for the applicant’s father, dated [in] October 2014.

    The delegate’s decision

19. On 12 December 2017, a delegate of the Minister, after considering the prescribed circumstances, decided to cancel the applicant’s visa. The delegate found that the applicant had provided incorrect information in his application for a protection visa on the basis of his travel to Libya between November and December 2014.

    Application for review

20. The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision.

21. In support of the application for review, the applicant provided a statement to the Tribunal, dated 29 November 2018. The statement covers further details in relation the applicant’s trip to Libya as outlined below.

22. There were two travel options available to him: the first option was for his father to travel to [Country 2] and the second option was for him to travel to Libya. The first option was preferred because his father could get good medical care with assistance from United Nations organisations and his brothers are in [Country 2]. However, his father would have needed to be transported in a private medical vehicle to the border without encountering any danger from militias and it was uncertain whether his father’s health permitted travelling that distance. In addition, it would have been difficult to locate a driver and medical staff willing to take the dangerous journey. Therefore, he chose the second option, which was to travel into Libya to visit his father.

23. He had been in contact with his father-in-law, who helped arranged smugglers for him. When he arrived in [Country 2], he contacted his father-in-law who arranged for [Mr C] to call him. [Mr C] contacted him and instructed him to be at the border check point at 4.30pm and wait for his call. When he arrived, [Mr C] did not call so he called [Mr C] and he instructed him to pass the [Country 2] boarder and have his passport stamped, and once he passed the border to contact him again. [Mr C] then instructed him to go via the medical and emergency supplies road and wait at the hill for a person named [Mr E]. [Mr E] stamped his passport and told him to pass the check point and wait at a rest spot where [Mr D] would be waiting outside a [car]. [Mr D] drove him to the hospital. The trip took 13 hours because of route changes as advised by [Mr C] over the phone. 

24. When they arrived at the hospital, [Mr C] had arranged for the applicant to enter via the back entrance with a nurse so that he did not have to show an ID and sign his name at the hospital entrance. Later, [Mr D] drove him home.

25. He stayed in the village for two weeks and during that time he visited the hospital four times. On one occasion, he had to return mid-way due to danger. He rarely went out of his home, but some relatives and friends knew he was there and came to visit.

26. He was scheduled to fly out of [Country 2] [in] December 2014 and was expected to leave the village four or five days prior to commencing his trip to [Country 2]. However, [Mr C] contacted him and told him they had to commence their trip [in date] November, because there was an air raid and bombing on the route they took to the village. A private plane was arranged by [Mr F] through [Mr C], from [one location] to [Country 2], however, due to roads being occupied by ISIS and the fighting they could not complete the journey. Instead, his father-in-law arranged for him to board [a] company plane from [Town 1]. He travelled to the home of his father-in-law with the assistance of [Mr G] and boarded the plane the next day. The plane had to land on [a] field in the desert [due] to bad weather and they were given rooms until they could fly again. He stayed at the home of [Mr I] until he was notified of a flight to [Country 2] [in] December 2014.

27. He was in Libya for less than a month and for almost half of this time he was travelling on outback roads or he was in hiding in various locations, awaiting the next leg of his journey. During his time in Libya, many modifications were made to ensure his safety.

    The hearing

28. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 December 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    The Certificate

29. The Department’s file relating to the cancellation of the applicant’s protection visa contains two non-disclosure certificates issued under s.438 of the Act in relation to certain folios in the file.

30. The first non-disclosure certificate was issued under s.438(1)(a) of the Act. The certificate applied to specified folios for the reason that the disclosure of the information therein would be contrary to the public interest as the information contained internal processing documents and may reveal Departmental investigation methods. After considering the contents of the folios identified, the Tribunal formed the view that the reason provided sufficient basis for public interest immunity and that the certificate was valid. The Tribunal explained to the applicant at the hearing that it considered the certificate to be valid. The Tribunal also explained to the applicant that it did not consider the particulars of the information covered by the certificate to be relevant to the issues under consideration in the matter under review.

31. The second non-disclosure certificate was issued under s.438(1)(b) of the Act and applied to information contained in certain folios for the reason that the information was given to the Department in confidence. In essence, the information was an anonymous allegation received by the Department after the applicant was granted his protection visa, asserting that the applicant had provided false information to the Department and that he does not fear harm in Libya. The Tribunal formed the view that this certificate was also valid as the reason provided sufficient basis for public interest immunity. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant its views in relation to the validity of the certificate. The Tribunal also put to the applicant the gist of the allegations and informed him that, as the allegations were anonymous, the Tribunal did not intend to rely on the information in considering the matter under review. The applicant did not specifically comment on this issue and the Tribunal has placed no weight on the information covered by the certificate.

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

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Having regard to the terms of the NOICC and the information referred to in the notice, 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. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the nature of the non-compliance was sufficiently particularised for the applicant to respond to it.

35. 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) referred to in the s.107 notice as set out in the NOICC.

36. It is well established that civil law concepts such as onus and standard of proof are generally inappropriate in the administrative law context.[1] Whilst a visa holder, whose visa is being considered for cancellation, must be invited to show that the ground for cancellation does not exist, or if it does, to show cause why the discretion should not be exercised, this does not place an onus on the visa holder to establish at that point that the visa should not be cancelled. 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.[2]

    [1] MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 282-283; Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191 at 200; McDonald v D-G of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 357; and Swan Television & Radio Broadcasters Ltd v ABT (1985) 8 FCR 291 at 297.

    [2] [2000] FCA 1235 (French, Hill and Carr JJ, 1 September 2000) at [25] and [32].

37. While that case was concerned with cancellation under s.119 of the Act, the Court’s comments would be equally applicable to s.109.

38. In Sullivan v CASA, the Full Federal Court held that when making findings of fact which have ‘serious’ or ‘grave’ consequences to a party, the Tribunal is free to consider the evidence and other materials before it.[3] In that case, Flick and Perry JJ said that:

    The more centrally relevant a particular fact may be to the decision reached, the Tribunal it may be accepted would express greater caution in evaluating the factual foundation for the decision to be reached.[4]

    [3] (2014) 226 FCR 555, per Flick and Perry JJ, at [120].

    [4] Ibid [120].

1. The Tribunal is not bound to apply the principle in Briginshaw v Briginshaw that the strength of evidence necessary to make a finding may be greater if the consequences of that finding are serious, but it is not prohibited from applying it if it sees fit. [5] The Court noted that s.33(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which provided that the Tribunal is not ‘bound’ to apply rules of evidence, was not a prohibition upon the tribunal applying those rules. It said that imposing a requirement for the Tribunal to apply the rule in Briginshaw in making its factual findings, would be an unnecessary constraint upon the freedom of the tribunal to employ such procedures as it sees fit in undertaking its fact-finding role.[6]

   [5] Sullivan v CASA (2014) 226 FCR 555, per Flick and Perry JJ, at [121], referring to Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, where Dixon J held at 362, ‘… reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences…’.

   [6] Sullivan v CASA (2014) 226 FCR 555, per Flick and Perry JJ, at [122].

2. As the contents of the NOICC demonstrate, the delegate considered the applicant’s responses to questions 42-48 in his Form 866C and the information provided in the accompanying statement. The delegate then referred to the applicant’s trip to Libya between 10 November 2014 and 7 December 2014. The delegate stated that the applicant’s voluntary return to Libya for a period of 28 days without experiencing any harm or impediment indicated that the applicant did not hold the adverse profile as claimed in his application for a protection visa. The delegate’s conclusion that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in his Form 866C and the accompanying statement, essentially, if not solely, was based on the applicant’s return to Libya without apparent issues and remaining in that country for the period referred to. Whilst the delegate identified specific answers provided by the applicant in his Form 866C and the accompanying statement, the Tribunal has found no evidence to establish that the applicant’s answers were in fact incorrect and that he had deliberately lied by claiming that he feared being persecuted by the Libyan authorities and militia groups on account of his imputed political opinion and for the reasons set out in his application for a protection visa.

3. The Tribunal appreciates that, broadly, an applicant’s act of returning to the country where they claim to fear being persecuted may raise questions in relation to his or her subjective fear of harm and the credibility of their claims for protection. However, the mere fact of return is not necessarily inconsistent with the claimed fear. The individual circumstances of the case and the precise claims which were made must be carefully examined. 

4. The applicant provided his evidence to the Tribunal in a consistent and straightforward manner. The Tribunal did not form any significant concerns in relation to the credibility of his past experiences or the explanations he has put forward in relation to the circumstances of his return to Libya.

5. After carefully considering the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal accepts that he held grave concerns for the health of his father, who had been hospitalised, around the time he travelled back to Libya in November 2014. The Tribunal accepts that, at that time, [some] of his brothers were outside of Libya and [another] brother was in prison. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant did not enter Libya through the main airport in Tripoli and took precautions by making arrangements through his father-in-law to enter the country through [a location]. The Tribunal accepts that he maintained a very low profile and visited his father in hospital on a handful of occasions. He then departed the country on board a private [company] aeroplane from [Town 1] with a stopover on [a] field due to bad weather.

6. Whilst the Tribunal appreciates that the applicant’s decision to return to Libya would have raised questions in relation to his claims for protection, it does not automatically follow that he had provided incorrect information in his application for a protection visa and the accompanying statement. The Tribunal accepts that by travelling to Libya the applicant took a calculated risk. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s desire to see his seriously ill father in November 2014 outweighed his fears arising from the circumstance that led to his application for a protection visa. 

7. Having regard to all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s return to Libya for a period of 28 days from [November] 2014 to [December] 2014 is inconsistent with the claims which he made in his application for a protection visa and the attached statement. The Tribunal does not accept that travelling to Libya on one occasion is a persuasive reason to find that the information the applicant provided in his application for a protection visa and his statement was incorrect. The Tribunal has not reached a real state of satisfaction that non-compliance has been established.

8. For these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant gave incorrect answers in his application for a protection visa. 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.

   Shahyar Roushan
   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.