1914038 (Migration)

[2019] AATA 6365

1914038 (Migration) [2019] AATA 6365 (9 October 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1914038

MEMBER:Linda Holub

DATE:9 October 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.

Statement made on 09 October 2019 at 6:37pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) (Extension) – incorrect answer in application – specified work in regional Australia – employer reported no record of applicant – actions of previous migration agent – impact on relationship with an Australian citizen – homosexuality in Taiwan – decision under review affirmed       

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 97-101, 107-109, 140
Migration Regulations 1994, 2.41

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 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

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 417 (Working Holiday) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant provided information in his application which was found to be not correct.  The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 September 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s roommate.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

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

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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?

1. 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 in the following respects: On 8 July 2018 the applicant lodged an application for a Subclass 417 visa and provided answers to questions about having undertaken specified work in regional Australia for a total of three months in the affirmative, and provided details of the specified work undertaken, naming an employers (by ABN number) and the periods of employment. He also confirmed in a declaration that he has done this work.  Based on that information he was granted a TZ 417 Working Holiday (Extension) visa on the same date. 

10) On 17 August 2018 the Department received advice from the employer nominated by the applicant who advised that he had never worked for them.

11) The Department’s decision record dated 28 May 2019 outlines the applicant’s response to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC). It states that the applicant acknowledged that incorrect information was provided and requested the department take into consideration his extenuating circumstances.  He wrote that the application was lodged online by his former “migration agent” ([Representative A]) who was referred to him by a friend.  He stated that he was wholly reliant on the advice of this agent due to his poor communication and limited understanding of Australian migration law. He states that he was not involved with the visa application process and was not aware that he was required to have worked in regional Australia for three months. He stated that he was not aware that the migration agent had claimed that he worked for that particular employer.  He wrote that it was never his intention to mislead or deceive the Department and that he is genuinely remorseful and apologises for any inconvenience caused. He also wrote that he regrets not conducting any other research before simply accepting the migration agent’s advice. He acknowledged that he is responsible for his own visa applications and cannot attribute all fault to his former migration agent.

12) The applicant requested that substantial weight be given to:

a.the fact that he was genuinely misled by his former migration agent.

b.the fact that he did not purposefully mislead and/or deceive the departments of home affairs.

c.that he always had a genuine intention to work lawfully under a subclass 417 working holiday visa and had no previous instances of non-compliance.

Evidence provided at hearing

13) The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s Hearing Invitation. When asked why he had not done so he stated that he no idea it was required.  He stated that his representative told him to attend.  He provided the Tribunal with written submissions at the commencement of the hearing. When asked why these documents were not provided seven days prior to the hearing he stated that he did not know that it was required.  His lawyer told him to provide information at the hearing.  

14) The Tribunal adjourned the hearing for approximately 30 minutes to review the submissions he had provided.

15) The applicant explained the circumstances of his visa application and the information that was provided.  He confirmed that he had responded to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation as outlined in paragraphs 11 and 12 of this decision.

16) The Tribunal noted that on that basis and on the basis of his oral evidence it appeared that the applicant was in agreement that incorrect information was provided.  He confirmed this.  The Tribunal explained that therefore it seemed apparent that incorrect information was provided and it would now proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled and would discuss with him factors that it would take into consideration and give him an opportunity to comment

17)  For the reasons outlined the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101 by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

Should the visa be cancelled?

18) 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).

19) 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. Briefly, they are:

• the correct information.

The Tribunal again referred to the information that had been provided on the application form and indicated that based on the information available to the Department and the applicant’s own evidence he did not work in a regional Australia for at least three months that therefore incorrect information was provided in the application.  The applicant had no further comment.

The Tribunal gives this no weight in the applicant’s favour.

• the content of the genuine document (if any).

This issue was not relevant as he had not provided a document.

The Tribunal gives this consideration no weight in the applicant’s favour.

• whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document.

The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the grant of the extension to a Working Holiday (Temporary) (class TZ) Subclass 417 visa is based on an applicant working in a regional location for the prescribed period.  His visa extension was granted on the basis of incorrect information.  The Tribunal asked if he had any further comment.  He acknowledged the relevance of the information and stated he had no further comment to make.

The Tribunal gives this consideration no weight in the applicant’s favour.

• the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred.

The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s written submissions which indicated that he had lodged a complaint against the person he used as a migration agent with the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) and translations of messages between a person referred to in the messages as [Representative A].

The Tribunal noted that in the Statutory Declaration signed on the day of the hearing stated that [Representative A] had tricked him by purporting to be a registered migration agent who promised that he would be able to extend his working holiday visa by paying him an amount of $1, 500.  The Tribunal also referred to the fact that the applicant claimed he had conducted a search of the MARA website will and cannot find such a person to be a registered migration agent. The Tribunal explained to him that in view of that there appeared to be little will point in lodging a complaint with MARA.  The applicant stated he had no further comment.

The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant may have used a person to assist him with the application process who was not a registered migration agent and that the applicant paid him a sum of money.  The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant lodged a complaint with MARA even though the person is not registered.  Nevertheless, the Tribunal is of the view that it is an applicant’s responsibility to ensure that information provided in an application is correct.  The applicant has himself acknowledged this.

The Tribunal gives this consideration minimal weight in the applicant’s favour.

• the present circumstances of the visa holder.

The applicant stated that he had previously worked as [an occupation 1] with [an employer] for approximately 3 months in 2018.  He provided a copy of a reference from the director dated 16 September 2019.  Prior to that, he worked as [an occupation 1] in Perth.  The applicant stated that he can’t work now because of his visa conditions and is reliant on previous savings and living with a friend.  They have been sharing a room for the past two months.

The Tribunal accepts the applicant previously worked as [an occupation 1] but is now longer able to do and shares accommodation with a friend and relies on his savings.

The Tribunal gives this consideration minimal weight in the applicant’s favour.

• the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act.

The Tribunal explained that there was no other information before the Tribunal in regard to his subsequent behaviour in relation to his obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act.  When asked if he wished to make any comment, he responded that he is willing to take all the responsibility and wants to stay and continue his study.  When asked what he is studying he responded he is currently not studying but would like to study [occupation 1] in Australia. 

The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is willing to take full responsibility for the incorrect information that was provided to the Department and that he wishes to study [an occupation 1].

The Tribunal gives this minimal weight in the applicant’s favour.

• any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister.

The Tribunal explained that there is nothing before the Tribunal in regard to any other instances of non-compliance.  He had no comment to make.

The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in the applicant’s favour.

• the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the length of time since the visa was cancelled at the end of May 2019 was not significant.  He had no comment to make.

The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in the applicant’s favour.

• any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches.

The Tribunal explained that there is nothing before the Tribunal in regard to any other breaches of the law.  He confirmed that is correct and had no comment to make.

The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in the applicant’s favour.

• any contribution made by the holder to the community.

The Tribunal asked the applicant if he wished to make any submissions regarding any contribution he had made to the community.  He responded in the negative.

The Tribunal gives this consideration minimal weight in the applicant’s favour.

20) 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.

• whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and subject to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention.

The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that if his visa is cancelled he may be required to depart Australia within 28 days.  The Tribunal also noted if he did not depart voluntarily he may be at risk of detention and that could be detained if he does not leave.  The Tribunal also explained that he may subject to a provision of the Act which may result in a three-year exclusion.  The applicant acknowledged these are mandatory consequences.

The Tribunal does not give significant weight to this factor in its consideration. 

• whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140.

The applicant acknowledged there are no consequential cancellations should his visa be cancelled.

The Tribunal does not give significant weight to this factor in its consideration. 

• whether any international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation, such as non-refoulement obligations, family unity principles or the obligation to consider the best interests of the child. 

The applicant agreed with the Tribunal that there do not appear to be any international obligations of Australia would be breached if his visa is to be cancelled.

The Tribunal does not give significant weight to these factors in its consideration. 

Evidence of witness during hearing

21) The applicant’s witness gave evidence that the applicant was cheated by the former migration agent.  He stated that the applicant attempted to find him but was unable to do so.  The witness gave evidence that he and the applicant share a room.

22) In relation to the applicant’s relationship with [Mr A], the witness stated their relationship the witness stated that he knows they are in relationship but he is unsure when.  He thought it was early this year.  He stated that [Mr A] was overseas at the time of the hearing and was due to return two days later. 

Any other relevant matters

23) The Tribunal has considered whether there are any other relevant matters, including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members.

24) At hearing the applicant provided a Statutory Declaration which raised issues that were not previously put forward.  He wrote that he met a person called [Mr A] and they very quickly formed a relationship.  He claimed that he and his partner would face hardship if his visa is cancelled.  When asked what hardship they would face, he stated that his partner wished to remain in Australia and that he does not want to go to Taiwan.  The Tribunal put it to him that his partner is not compelled to go to Taiwan.  He responded that if his visa is cancelled and he faces a three-year exclusion it will big psychological impact on him.

25) The Tribunal explained that as he is making a claim that his departure will impact negatively on somebody he may wish to provide some evidence and asked if there is any reason his partner is did not attend the hearing or provide a statement on his behalf.  The applicant stated that his partner is currently overseas.  He responded that his partner can support him but he doesn’t want his partner to support him. 

26) The applicant stated that he has been in a relationship with his partner for the past four or five months.  He stated they met on Grindr.  The applicant stated that his partner is returning from overseas [in] October 2019. He stated his partner was in [a specified country] to attend a friend’s wedding and to visit friends and parents. 

27) The Tribunal asked about a reference in the applicant’s Statutory Declaration of 30 September 2019 that he is stressed and will have a mental breakdown.  He responded that this will occur if he has to leave Australia because he loves his partner. The Tribunal acknowledged his situation is stressful and he would miss his partner but asked him how he could predict a mental breakdown.  He responded that he does not want to be separated.  The applicant stated that he had no evidence of his stress.

28) The applicant provided confusing evidence about whether he wanted [Mr A] to provide evidentiary support.  The Tribunal agreed to accept written submissions from his partner by close of business on 8 October 2019.

29) The Tribunal referred to a reference in his Statutory Declaration of 20 September 2019 that he is depressed and asked if he had been diagnosed with depression.  He responded that he has not but that he is taking medication for a chronic disease and one of the side effects is depression.  He stated that he has been diagnosed with HIV.  The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knows he has depression if he has not been diagnosed.  He responded that he suppresses things in his heart.  The Tribunal put it to him that it could accept that he supresses things but clinical depression is usually more than that.  He reiterated that he has not been diagnosed but it is a side effect of the medication.  The Tribunal invited him to submit any medical evidence he wished to provide by close of business on 8 October 2019.

30) The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not make reference to his relationship with [Mr A] in his response to the NOICC.  He responded that did not occur to him but later his lawyer told him that he can alert the Tribunal to the relationship.

31) The applicant’s 30 September 2019 Statutory Declaration states that he has always been a homosexual; ever since he was a child and he gave oral evidence that he was always openly homosexual.  The Tribunal asked the applicant about the comment in his Statutory Declaration that he will “have to conform [his] sexual orientation to what Taiwanese consider ‘normal’”.  He responded that although same sex marriage legalised, there is still discrimination in Taiwan.  He stated there is less discrimination in Australia and that he can be friendly with homosexual people here.  

32) The Tribunal put it him that there is some evidence indicating that Taiwan is widely seen as the most LGBT-friendly destination in Asia.  Amongst other factors, it is the first Asian country to approve same-sex marriage, it is home to the largest Gay Pride celebration in Asia, it has a lively LGTI movie scene and most Taiwanese cities boast LGBT-friendly bars and nightclubs.  Given his evidence that he had previously lived openly as gay person, it was trouble reconciling why he would face hardship if he returned to Taiwan. 

33) The applicant responded that the more friendly area is in Taipei but in the countryside people are more conservative.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he would you have to live in the countryside.  The applicant stated that his parents live in the countryside.  The Tribunal put it to him that he lives in Sydney without his parents. In response he stated his parents have rules that in Taiwan he has to live with them.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to explain why they are agreeable to him living without them in Sydney but in Taiwan he must live with them. He stated that it is because Taiwan is far away from Australia.  He stated that he does not want to live in Taipei or another city.  He wants to live near them rather so that he can help them if required. 

34) The Tribunal was not persuaded by the applicant’s claims that it will be necessary for to live in the countryside with his parents if he is to return to Taiwan but not do so when he is living outside of Taiwan. It was unconvincing and did not ring true.

35) The Tribunal acknowledges that homosexual people in Taiwan may face discrimination from time to time.  The Tribunal has had regard to the fact that the applicant has always lived openly as a homosexual person.  Nothing in the evidence put forward by the applicant persuaded the Tribunal that he will face hardship in Taiwan as a result of his sexuality.

36) The applicant provided the Tribunal with a five photos, four of which show him with another man.  The Tribunal is prepared to accept they are photos of the applicant and his partner.

Post hearing evidence

37) The Tribunal was provided with further written evidence after the hearing in support of the applicant’s claims regarding the hardship he will suffer if his visa is cancelled.

38) A Statutory Declaration from the applicant’s partner dated 8 October 2019 confirmed the applicant’s oral evidence that he commenced a relationship with his partner after first meeting on 22 April 2019.  It provides some back ground to the relationship’s development, their common interests and financial arrangements.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a relationship.  However, the Tribunal notes that their first meeting on 22 April 2019 occurred after the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation which is dated 15 April 2019.  The applicant was on notice that his visa may be cancelled when he first met [Mr A].

39) The applicant also provided copies of his medical records, which confirm his oral evidence regarding his sexual health.  The applicant has not claimed that he will face hardship if he were to return to Taiwan because of this.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant was diagnosed with HIV in Taiwan in 2008 and therefore lived in Taiwan with the condition for many years before travelling to Australia.

40) A Statutory Declaration made by him on 8 October 2019 states that one of the side effects of his medication is depressive mood.  He stated that his partner helps him with his mood and his very happy and not depressed when he is with him.  He states that his fear is that if his visa is cancelled and he is unable to remain in Australia his depression will relapse without his partner’s support.

41) In relation to the applicant’s references to having depression, the Tribunal accepts that depressive mood may be a side effect of his medication.  The Tribunal notes that in his oral evidence the applicant stated that he has not been diagnosed with depression.  Furthermore, the medical evidence submitted does not indicate that the applicant has been diagnosed with depression.

42) The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant is stressed given his current situation.  Furthermore, the Tribunal is prepared to accept his mood is better and he feels happier when he is with is partner.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant wishes to main in Australia and wishes to be with his partner.  However the Tribunal is not satisfied based on the evidence put forward that being separated from his partner will cause hardship.  Given the lack of evidence regarding depression the Tribunal does not accept his depression will worsen or that he will suffer a mental breakdown.

43) The Tribunal accepts [Mr A] does not wish to live in Taiwan.  There is no compulsion for him to do so.

44) Overall, for the reasons outlined the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant or his new partner will suffer hardship if his visa is cancelled  Therefore, the Tribunal does not give significant weight to this factor in its consideration.

Other issues raised by the applicant

45) In his 30 September 2019 Statutory Declaration, the applicant expressed surprise that the Department gave no weight to his truthfulness and makes him wonder what he could have done in relation to the agent called [Representative A].  He also comments on the reference in the Department’s cancellation decision that he had substantial time to inform the Department of the incorrect responses.  However, he states that he only found out about the incorrect responses in the NOICC letter and immediately sought legal advice.  He refers to being a good worker and seeks a second chance so that the cancellation is not on his visa record.

46) The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was surprised at various aspects of the Department’s decision and that he may not have been aware the incorrect responses until he received the NOICC.  The Tribunal is prepared to accept that he is a good worker and accepts that he seeks a second chance, that his visa not be cancelled.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant is remorseful and that he did not purposefully mislead the Department and that he intended to work lawfully.  Regardless, the Tribunal is not persuaded that these factors are reasons why the applicant’s visa should not be cancelled.  As previously noted, the Tribunal is of the view that an applicant is responsible for the information provided in their application forms. 

CONCLUSION

47) 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. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

DECISION

48) The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.

Linda Holub
Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)

1. Interpretation

   (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.

2. Interpretation

   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).

3. Completion 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.

4. Information 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.

5. Incorrect 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.

6. Visa 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.

7. Notice 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.

8. Decision 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.

9. Cancellation 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.