1810655 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 6018

1810655 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6018 (30 July 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1810655

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan

MEMBER:Alison Murphy

DATE:30 July 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 30 July 2019 at 11:35am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – cancellation – protection visa – Pakistan – political opinion – feared harm from Taliban – NGO employee – did not give incorrect information – no non-compliance by applicant – applicant voluntarily returned to Pakistan to visit ill child and elderly parents – took measures to reduce risk to safety while in Pakistan – no evidence applicant returned to Pakistan in 2013 – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 102, 107, 109, 119
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

CASES
DMH16 v MIBP [2017] FCA 448
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Brar [2012] FCAFC 30
SZEEM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 27
Zhao v Minister for Multicultural Affairs [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 it was considered the applicant breached s.101 and s.102 of the Act by providing incorrect information in his visa application and passenger cards. The particulars of the information stated to be incorrect are set out in the s.107 notice dated 14 August 2017.

3. The issues before the Tribunal are:

   ·Whether the s.107 notice was sufficiently particularised; and if so

   ·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.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 June 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.

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

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

   LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

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. 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.

   Is the s.107 notice sufficiently particularised?

10. In the present case, there is a question as to whether the notices issued by the Minister’s delegate complied with s.107. Section 107 of the Act states the requirements of a notice issued under that provision. If the Minister is of the view that a visa holder did not comply with s.101 of the Act (as asserted in the present case) subsection (1)(a) requires the notice to give “particulars of the possible non-compliance”.

11. I understand the oral submissions of the applicant’s representative at hearing to be that the s.107 notice is invalid because it fails to identify with sufficient particularity why the information provided by the applicant in his protection visa application is now said to be incorrect, merely because the applicant later voluntarily returned to Pakistan.

12. The s.107 notice was issued to the applicant on 14 August 2017.  It stated that the author of the notice (who was in this case the delegate) considered there had been non-compliance with s.101 of the Act (visa applications to be correct) and s.102 of the Act (passenger cards to be correct). It set out the details of that alleged non-compliance as follows:

    On 22 November 2011 you lodged an application for protection visa on Form 866 – Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.

    At question 1 of part B of the Form 866 you provided the following information:

    Family name: [Surname]

    Given names: [First name]

    Date of birth: [Date]

    At question 46 of part C of the Form 866 you claim that you left Pakistan because the Taliban had sent you two warning letters threatening to kill you and had attempted to do so by attacking your family home.

    At question 47 of part C of the Form 866 you claim if you were to return to Pakistan you fear you would be killed:

    ‘The Taliban will kill me because I was accused of being a spy of the west and worked for a NGO’.

    Question 48 of part C of the Form 866 asks, ‘What harm, if any, have you experienced in your country of nationality?’ In your statutory declaration you describe how the Taliban attacked your family home, injuring your brother [and] killing another [brother].

    Question 49 of part C of the Form 866 asks, ‘Who do you think may harm/ mistreat you if you go back to your country of nationality?’ You answered ‘The Taliban’.

    In answer to question 50 of part C of the Form 866 which asks ‘Why do you think this will happen to you if you go back to your country of nationality?’ you responded ‘the Taliban killed my brother, they should have killed me, but my brother got trapped in the fire. They have a vast network, they will catch me and kill me’.

    Question 51 of part C of the Form 866 asks ‘Do you think the authorities in your country of nationality can and will protect you if you go back?’ You replied:

    ‘The Pakistani government does not care about people like me. The government is weak against the Taliban. There are a lot of NGOs in Pakistan.

    I am the enemy of the Taliban because I used to work for a NGO and therefore considered a spy and an enemy of the Taliban movement. Once the Taliban target someone, they don’t forget and if I was to return, they will get me and I will be killed. The Taliban’s network is very extensive and they always catch people who are against them.’

    On 29 June 2012, based on the above information and appearing to meet all other relevant criteria, the protection visa (subclass 866) was granted.

13. The s.107 notice then went on to set out the reasons why the above information was now considered to be incorrect. In summary, the author noted that:

    ·the applicant had made enquiries of the Department about visiting his family in Pakistan and advised of the possible adverse effects on his protection visa if he did so. In response he stated he would go to Afghanistan and meet his family there;

    ·the s.107 notice set out that [in] January 2013 his wife [lodged] an application for a partner visa for which the applicant was the sponsor;

    ·the applicant departed Australia from [February] 2013 to [May] 2013 and stated on his incoming passenger card that he spent most time abroad in Afghanistan;

    ·during the processing of the applicant’s wife’s partner visa, she advised she had given birth to a child [whose] conception coincided with the period the applicant was overseas;

    ·[in] 2014 the applicant was issued a Pakistani passport;

    ·the applicant departed Australia for Afghanistan from [May] 2015 to [August] 2015 and stated on his incoming passenger card that he spent most time abroad in Afghanistan;

    ·photos published on the applicant’s [social media] account suggested that the applicant travelled to Pakistan during the period of his second departure from Australia.

14. The author considered the above information suggested the applicant had travelled to Pakistan via Afghanistan for a combined period of six months during his two departures from Australia and that while in Pakistan he had enjoyed significant freedom of movement. This led the author to consider that the applicant’s statements in his protection visa applications as set out above were incorrect. It also led the author to consider that the applicant had given incorrect information in his passenger cards when he stated that he spent most of his time in Afghanistan.

15. In considering whether the NOICC in this case is sufficiently particularised, I note the Full Federal Court’s remarks in Zhao v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs:

    Section 119 requires particulars of the grounds relied upon to be included in the notice. The level of particularity is not specified. It must serve the statutory purpose. That is to say it must be sufficient, when read in conjunction with the supporting information, to fairly inform the visa holder of the basis upon which cancellation is being considered so that the visa holder is adequately equipped to provide such relevant information as may be available and to make such submissions as maybe open . . . The overall purpose to be served by s 119 is procedural fairness and it is that which informs the construction and application of the section.[1]  

    [1]    Zhao v Minister for Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1235 at 25]‑[26].

16. While Zhao dealt with s.119 of the Act rather than s.107 of the Act, the Full Federal Court noted in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Brar that the statements in the Zhao case “are of assistance in terms of the proper interpretation and application of s 107”.[2]  

    [2]    Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Brar [2012] FCAFC [57].

17. The Court in SZEEM v Minister for Immigration went on to state:

    . . . the requirement of ‘particulars’ must, in my opinion, also encompass particulars of the basis upon which the falsity is alleged, and these must be given with enough detail to allow the recipient a real opportunity to understand and attempt to answer the non-compliance allegation.[3]

    [3] SZEEM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 27 [38].

18. The Federal Court of Australia explains the requirement for proper particulars in a notice under s.107(1)(a) as follows:

    It can readily be accepted that the cancellation of a visa, especially one granting permanency of residence, is a serious matter. It is against that background that one comes to ss. 107 and 109 of the Act. The provision of incorrect or false information and the use of ‘bogus’ documents being the matters, broadly stated, that are covered by ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 107(2) are also potentially very serious matters. It is easy to understand why the Parliament required some precision and specificity in the notice: s 107(1)(a). Particulars of non-compliance with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 107(2) are what is called for. One does not give particulars of non-compliance with s.101 by saying . . . that s.101 has not been complied with. It is specifics (the particulars) of that non-compliance that are required to be given.[4]

    [4] Saleem v Migration Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 234 (30 March 2004) at [43]

19. The Federal Magistrates Court held in Gido-Christian v MIAC [2007] FMCA 825 that when determining whether the notice is sufficiently particularised, a common sense application of s.107 should be applied. In that case the court held that the s.107 notice provided sufficient information about the central notion of whether the claimed relationship was genuine, even though it did not identify a specific incorrect answer in the applicant’s material.

20. Applying the same reasoning in these cases, I find that the s.107 notice provided sufficient information about the central notions identified in the notice as being potentially incorrect. Those central notions are that the delegate believed there to be reasons for considering the applicant had returned to Pakistan via Afghanistan in 2013 and 2015 where he appeared to have enjoyed significant freedom of movement. This led the delegate to consider that his statements in his protection visa application to the effect that he feared harm in Pakistan from the Taliban and other extremist groups were incorrect and that he had given incorrect information in his incoming and outgoing passenger cards.

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

21. The notice under s.107 was sent to the applicant on 14 August 2017. As set out above, the notice re-stated his protection claims and noted he was granted a protection visa on the basis of the claims made. The notice then went on to set out the reasons why the above information was now considered to be incorrect. In essence, those reasons were that the applicant had made enquiries of the Department about visiting his family in Pakistan, that he had travelled to Afghanistan between February and May 2013 and May to August 2015 and that photos on his [social media] account suggested he had travelled to Pakistan via Afghanistan for a combined period of six months and enjoyed significant freedom of movement in Pakistan.

22. The s.107 notice set out that these matters led the author to consider that the applicant’s statements in his protection visa applications as set out above were incorrect and that the applicant had given incorrect information in his passenger cards when he stated that he spent most of his time in Afghanistan in each of the periods he was out of Australia in 2013 and 2015.

23. The applicant was represented during the visa cancellation process. He responded to the s.107 notice via his representative on 29 August 2017 and 26 February 2018. In those responses, he denied returning to Pakistan in either 2013 or 2015. He stated the photos of himself and his family in Pakistan posted on his [social media] account were taken in 2010 and 2011, but uploaded by his nephew [in] 2015.

24. However in submissions lodged shortly before the Tribunal hearing, the applicant conceded that the information provided in response to the s.107 notice was incorrect. The applicant acknowledged that he did return to Pakistan for approximately two weeks in 2015, and he provided incorrect information in response to the s.107 notice on the advice of his former migration agent who told him that if he admitted to returning to his home country his visa would be automatically cancelled and he would be detained and deported.

25. While it is clear the applicant gave incorrect information to the Department in response to the s.107 notice, that incorrect information is not the subject of the current proceeding. Rather the issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the applicant gave incorrect information in the manner described in the s.107 notice, that information being set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 above.

26. The Australian courts have made clear that a mere suspicion is not sufficient to establish the ground for cancellation. Rather, before the visa can be cancelled, a decision maker must reach a real state of satisfaction that a ground for cancellation exists. A visa cannot be cancelled because the decision-maker has identified a possible ground for cancellation which the visa holder has not been able to rebut.[5]

    [5] Zhao v Minister for Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1235 (French, Hill and Carr JJ, 1 September 2000) at [25] and [32].

27. For the following reasons I am not satisfied the applicant gave incorrect information in his protection visa application or passenger cards in the manner described in the s.107 notice.

    Travel to Afghanistan 8 February 2013 to 9 May 2013

28. The s.107 notice set out (and the delegate later found) that the applicant returned to Pakistan via Afghanistan in 2013. In my view that finding cannot be sustained. There is no evidence of any kind that the applicant returned to Pakistan in 2013, rather the available evidence suggests the contrary. The applicant travelled on his Australian Titre de Voyage, a copy of which is held on the Departmental file. That travel document contains a visa to enter Afghanistan valid for the period [February] 2013 and [May] 2013 and entry and exit stamps for his travel. His outgoing and incoming passenger cards record that the country in which he spent most of his time was Afghanistan.

29. The s.107 notice records that while the applicant made enquiries of the Department about returning to Pakistan to see his family in early 2013, he was advised against it. He then told the Department he would travel to Afghanistan and meet his family there instead.  The s.107 notice records that during the processing of the applicant’s wife’s partner visa, she advised she had given birth to a child [whose] conception coincided with the period the applicant was overseas. This is consistent with the applicant’s advice to the Department that he intended to meet his family in Afghanistan. The fact a child was conceived during the period of the applicant’s absence from Australia cannot logically establish that the child was conceived in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan.

30. At hearing the applicant gave evidence he flew into Kabul where he was met at the airport by his cousin [Mr A] and their close school friend [Mr B], who have both migrated from Pakistan to Afghanistan. [Mr A] works for [Organisation 1] and [Mr B] works for [Organisation 2]. [Mr A] is the son of the applicant’s mother’s sister and his family live family in [City 1], although at the time [Mr A] was working in Kabul. I note the applicant’s protection claims and supporting documents indicates he too was employed by an NGO prior to leaving Pakistan in 2011.

31. The applicant gave evidence his parents, wife and children travelled from Pakistan over the Durand line into Afghanistan, as commonly occurs among Pashtun resident in the border areas. At that time they were able to enter Afghanistan by driving from their village in Swat Valley to the Durand line where it is necessary to walk along a trail for half an hour, before reaching taxi stands on the Afghan side of the border. The applicant gave evidence that there are border officers at the checkpoint, but very few people are stopped or searched. Had they been stopped, they would have been allowed to pass by showing identity documents. The applicant’s evidence in this regard is consistent with country information cited in the delegate’s decision to the effect that there are 50,000 – 60,000 undocumented movements across the Durand line every day[6].

    [6] See the delegate’s decision dated 29 March 2018 at page 2

32. The applicant have evidence his family stayed with their relatives in [City 1] for the whole three month period he was in Afghanistan. The applicant’s oral evidence is consistent with the documentary evidence from [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C]. He has also provided a medical certificate in relation to his wife who saw a [medical specialist] in Kabul during the early stages of her pregnancy.

33. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied the applicant travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan during his absence from Australia in 2013. It follows that I am not satisfied that he gave incorrect information in his outgoing or incoming passenger cards when he stated that the country in which he spent the most time was Afghanistan.

    Travel to Afghanistan 19 May 2015 to 16 August 2015

1. The s.107 notice set out that the applicant appeared to have returned to Pakistan via Afghanistan in 2015, based on the fact he obtained a Pakistani passport in 2014 and photos posted on [social media] showing him with his family in locations in and around Swat in 2015.

2. While the applicant denied returning to Pakistan during this trip in his response to the s.107 notice, at hearing before me he gave evidence that he in fact returned to Swat for a period of two weeks to see his parents and [child] as they were too elderly or in his [child]’s case, unwell, to walk across the border into Afghanistan. He said at that time Pakistani Pashtuns travelling across the Durand line required visas, but these were possible to obtain. However his [child] [had] for some time been suffering from severe leg pain for which she was receiving medical treatment in Peshawar and was unable to walk across the border. She was later diagnosed with [a medical condition] in her leg and underwent [surgery].

3. A pathology report from [hospital in] Pakistan, dated [April] 2018 confirms [the applicant’s child] underwent [surgery] at that hospital. A report from [a doctor] [dated] [April] 2018 suggests that the findings are suggestive [details deleted]. Further medical documents concerning medical investigations into [the child’s] leg pain dating back to 2015 were also provided. The submissions of the applicant’s representative indicate that those investigations are ongoing.

4. The applicant gave evidence that it was his desire to see [his child] and his elderly parents that caused him to cross the border in Pakistan, despite his fear of harm there.  He did not return to his village [which] was only about one and a half hours from [Mr A]’s house in [City 1], rather he took a longer journey [in] order to avoid his village. His family rented a house in [Named location] where his [child] and parents stayed for the summer. He and the rest of his family stayed in [Named location] for two weeks before returning to [City 1], where he stayed for the remainder of his trip. He gave evidence that the two weeks he was in Pakistan was very stressful for him and he was very scared, although nothing happened.

5. I have viewed the pages from the applicant’s [social media] account that are contained on the Departmental file. They confirm the applicant returned to [Country 1] and [Named location] in Swat with his family. I am unable to determine the dates on which the photos were posted or the period in which they were taken from the printed material on the Departmental file, but I note the applicant does not deny they were taken and posted on [social media] during the period he was absent from Australia in 2015.

6. I have had regard to the fact the applicant initially denied returning to Pakistan in 2015 in his response to the s.107 notice, which reflects poorly on his credibility. However nothing in the information before me is inconsistent with his evidence that he returned for two weeks during the three month period he was out of Australia.  Further, the documentary and oral evidence support his claims of his [child]’s illness and the circumstances in which he travelled to Swat.

7. The applicant travelled to Afghanistan on his Australian Titre de Voyage, a copy of which is held on the Departmental file. That travel document contains a visa to enter Afghanistan valid for the period [May] 2015 and [August] 2015 and entry and exit stamps for his travel. His outgoing and incoming passenger cards record that the country in which he spent most of his time was Afghanistan. Documentary evidence from [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C] indicates that they regularly socialised with the applicant in Afghanistan during the period he was out of Australia.

8. In relation to the Pakistani passport, the applicant stated he applied for that passport in 2014 because he wished to travel to [Country 2] and he was advised by a travel agent that he could not travel to [Country 2] on his Australian Titre de Voyage. On obtaining the passport, he immediately advised the Department. As it turned out the travel agent took his deposit but never arranged his trip to [Country 2]. 

9. I am satisfied the applicant returned to Pakistan for a period of a few weeks in 2015. However on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied he spent the whole of the time he was absent from Australia in Pakistan as suggested by the s.107 notice, rather I accept his evidence and the other documentary evidence that indicates the majority of his time was spent in Afghanistan. It follows that I am not satisfied that he gave incorrect information in his outgoing or incoming passenger cards when he stated that the country in which he spent the most time was Afghanistan.

10. Nor am I satisfied that the applicant’s brief return to Pakistan to see his family in 2015 means he gave incorrect information in his protection visa application in 2011. I consider his desire to return to see his [child] and elderly parents to be perfectly understandable. I accept that while he had ongoing concerns for his personal safety during his time in Swat, those matters were ultimately outweighed by his concern for his family. I also consider the applicant had good reasons for considering the threat to his own safety may have subsided somewhat since his first departure from Pakistan:

    a.Firstly, a considerable period of time had elapsed between the events that formed the basis of his protection claims in 2011 and his return in 2015; 

    b.Secondly, the applicant’s protection claims were linked closely to his employment for the [NGO] in Pakistan which ended in 2011;

    c.Thirdly, the applicant took measures to reduce the risk to his safety by avoiding his home village and renting accommodation several hours away for the brief period of time he was in Pakistan.

    Conclusion on non-compliance

11. For the above reasons, I find 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

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

    Alison Murphy
    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.