1920312 (Migration)

[2019] AATA 6622

1920312 (Migration) [2019] AATA 6622 (11 November 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1920312

MEMBER:Ann Duffield

DATE:11 November 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa.

Statement made on 11 November 2019 at 1:55pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa – Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) – incorrect information in previous protection application – identity and citizenship – department informed of correct information, confirmed by documentation – admission to tribunal of incorrect information – factors for and against cancellation –implausible and unpersuasive evidence – extended trips to home country – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 107, 109(1)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41

CASE

MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 24

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 (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with section 101 of the Act in that he provided incorrect answers on his original protection visa application. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received assistance from the applicant’s representative who also attended the hearing.

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

BACKGROUND

1. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision along with his application for review. The Tribunal provided the applicant and his representative with a copy of a s.375A certificate in relation to information provided to the Department to indicate that the applicant had provided incorrect information in relation to his identity and protection claims. The Tribunal told the applicant that the information it covered had been canvassed in the delegate’s decision.

2. The applicant claims to be a citizen of [Country 1] born on [Date 1]. He was married in [Country 2] in 2013.

3. The applicant arrived on Christmas Island as an illegal maritime arrival [in] May 2010 claiming to be [a Country 1] national fearing persecution in [Country 1]. He claimed to be an ethnic [Ethnicity] who left [Country 1] in 2009 for [City] in [Country 2] before engaging a smuggler to travel to Australia.

4. The delegate was not satisfied that this was a truthful account and the applicant was refused a protection visa [in] January 2011 however this was overturned and [in] October 2011 and the applicant lodged a Subclass 866 protection visa application. He was granted a protection visa [in] November 2011 and, subsequently, a Resident Return Visa (Subclass 155) [in] March 2016.

5. The applicant was convicted of a number of [offences] in Australia and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment which was suspended for two years after serving a period of six months in prison.

6. As a result of the criminal convictions, the applicant’s visa was cancelled previously under s.501 but the decision to cancel was revoked in January 2019. At that time, the applicant claimed that he had been in a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen for about 5 years and was a step father to her two children.

7. The applicant has been offshore for a total of some 276 days declaring that he has spent that time in [Country 2].

8. In his protection visa application the applicant made a number of claims, including the following:

   a.   His name is [Name 1] born in [Location] in [Country 1] on [Date 1];

   b.   His father [Mr A1] is deceased. He was a member of the [Political] party [1] who was tortured by people in the [Political] party [2] in around 2004/5;

   c.   His mother and her siblings had been living in [City, Country 2] since around the beginning of 2009;

   d.   His father killed a member of the [Political] party [2] and the rest of the village hated his family and he had to resort to begging;

   e.   He was persecuted because of his ethnicity and his uncle tried to force him to convert to Sunni Islam and become a suicide bomber. Because he refused his uncle tried to kill him several times;

   f.    His uncle beat his mother and siblings and a [Political] party [2] member assaulted his mother;

   g.   He fled to [Country 2] to escape persecution from other villagers and his uncle;

   h.   He went to [Country 3] where he was introduced to a people smuggler who helped to get him to [Country 4]; and

   i.    He claims he does not know where his family resides and his uncle cannot locate them.

9. In August 2015 the Department received information that the applicant’s true name is [Name 2] born on [Date 2] and he is a citizen of [Country 2]. The information obtained by the Department also shows that the applicant’s father is [Mr A2] and that he is also a [Country 2] citizen who works for [Employer] in [Country 2] and is still alive.

10. The Department also obtained information that the applicant’s sister, [Ms B] born on [Date 3], is in Australia as the holder of a partner visa.

11. The Department used open sources, in [Social media] particularly, to verify this information including that the applicant’s father posed a photograph of himself with the applicant and the applicant’s brothers with a caption “a father with his sons”.

12. The applicant confirmed with the Department during an interview that the photograph was taken at his wedding but that the other men were not his father and brothers but friends of his wife. He claims that he only met those gentlemen for the first time at his wedding in March 2013. The post shared in social media however dates from October 2012.

13. Upon his departure from Australia [in] August 2017 the applicant was interviewed by Border Force officials, and a [Country 2] National Identity card [number] was found in his possession. The [Country 2] National Identity card was issued [in] February 2014 to [Mr A2] born [Date 4] (the applicant’s father). The delegate confirmed the authenticity of this document and that [Mr A2] is the father of, amongst others, [Name 2] (the applicant).The delegate found that the applicant was therefore a citizen of [Country 2] or someone who was entitled to be a citizen of [Country 2].

14. Neither at interview with the delegate, nor subsequently, was the applicant able to provide any [Country 1] identity documents despite his claim that he provided a copy of his [Country 1] drivers licence to VicRoads in order to obtain a learners permit. VicRoads confirmed that no such document was provided by the applicant.

15. The applicant has confirmed that he was married in March 2013 and has a child born in December 2015 however he has refused to provide these documents to the Department thus raising further concerns about his true identity.

16. Given the breadth of this information, the delegate found that both the applicant’s parents, the applicant and his siblings were all born in [Country 2] and he was a [Country 2] citizen at the time of his application for a Protection visa and that his true name is [Name 2] born on [Date 2]. The delegate found that the applicant deliberately circumvented the proper processing for a visa to Australia and seriously questioned the credibility of his claims for protection.

FAILURE TO COMPLY

1. The delegate found that the applicant failed to provide an answer to question 20 in Part C of the Form 866 where he left the question of his current citizenship blank. Thus the applicant failed to comply with section 101(a).

2. The delegate also found that the applicant failed to comply with section 101(b) in that he provided incorrect information in relation to his name, his date of birth, the death of his father and that he is a [Country 2] citizen not [a Country 1] citizen.

3. In particular the delegate found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 4 of Part C of the Form 866 when he replied “no” to the question of whether he had been known by any other name. This is incorrect because the visa holder is known to the Department as [Name 2] born on [Date 2] in [Country 2].

4. The delegate also found that the applicant answered question 7 of the Form 866 incorrectly when he declared his date of birth is [Date 1] when the information before the Department is that he was born on [Date 2].

5. The delegate further found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 8 of Part C of Form 866 when he stated that his place of birth was [Location, Country 1] when information before the Department is that he was born in [Country 2] and that he is the son of [Mr A2] who is a [Country 2] citizen.

6. The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 19 of Part C of the Form 866 when he stated that he was [a Country 1] citizen from birth. Information before the Department however reveals that the applicant was born in [Country 2] to a [Country 2] citizen father and is a [Country 2] citizen by birth.

7. The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer to question 21 of Part C of the Form 866 when he declared that he was not a citizen of another country. Information before the delegate is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2].

8. The delegate found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer to question 22 of Part C of the Form 866 when he declared that he had no right to enter or reside in, whether temporarily or permanently any other country than his country of nationality. The applicant declared that his country of nationality and habitual residence was [Country 1] however as indicated above the information before the delegate is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2] and has a right to enter into and reside lawfully in that country.

9. The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 42 of Part C of the Form 866 which asked why he left [Country 1] and he stated that following his father’s death his [uncle] (as well as the villagers) persecuted him and he was forced to flee to [Country 2] and subsequently [Country 3].

10. The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 43 of Part C of the Form 866 which asked what he feared may happen if he were forced to return to [Country 1] and the applicant stated that he would be killed. The delegate found that this answer was incorrect because information before it is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2], born in [Country 2] and was never a resident in [Country 1].

11. The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 44 of Part C of the Form 866 which asked who he believed may harm or mistreat him if he went back to [Country 1] and he replied that he feared his [uncle] and the villagers who were angry with him and his family. The delegate found that this answer was incorrect because information before it is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2], born in [Country 2] and was never a resident in [Country 1] when he claimed or at any other time.

12. The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 45  of Part C of the Form 866 which asked why he thinks he may be killed he stated that his uncle would kills him. The delegate found that this answer was incorrect because information before it is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2], born in [Country 2] and was never a resident in [Country 1].

13. The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 46 of Part C of the Form 866 which asked whether the applicant believed that the authorities of [Country 1] can and will protect him if he returns and he stated that in the eyes of the [Country 1] authorities he is a bad man and no one would protect him. The delegate found that this answer was incorrect because information before it is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2], born in [Country 2] and was never a resident in [Country 1] either at the time he claimed or at any other time.

14. The delegate found that the grounds for cancellation existed.

15. The applicant did not respond to the delegate’s notice of intention to cancel his visa where this information was put to the applicant. The applicant’s visa was cancelled.

16. The Tribunal received a submission from the applicant, approximately one hour before the scheduled hearing. In that submission the applicant admitted to providing incorrect information to the Department in all respects regarding his identity, citizenship and claims.

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.

2. At the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant the following details of his alleged non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice in relation to ss.101(a) and 101(b).

   a.   The delegate found that the applicant failed to provide an answer to question 20 in Part C of the Form 866 where he left the question of his current citizenship blank. Thus the applicant failed to comply with section 101(a).

   b.   The delegate also found that the applicant failed to comply with section 101(b) in that he provided incorrect information in relation to his name, his date of birth, the death of his father and that he is a [Country 2] citizen not [a Country 1] citizen.

   c.   In particular the delegate found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 4 of Part C of the Form 866 when he replied “no” to the question of whether he had been known by any other name. This is incorrect because the visa holder is known to the Department as [Name 2] born on [Date 2] in [Country 2].

   d.   The delegate also found that the applicant answered question 7 of the Form 866 incorrectly when he declared his date of birth is [Date 1] when the information before the Department is that he was born on [Date 2].

   e.   The delegate further found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 8 of Part C of Form 866 when he stated that his place of birth was [Location, Country 1] when information before the Department is that he was born in [Country 2] and that he is the son of [Mr A2] who is a [Country 2] citizen.

   f.    The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 19 of Part C of the Form 866 when he stated that he was [a Country 1] from birth. Information before the Department however reveals that the applicant was born in [Country 2] to a [Country 2] citizen father and is a [Country 2] citizen by birth.

   g.   The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer to question 21 of Part C of the Form 866 when he declared that he was not a citizen of another country. Information before the delegate is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2].

   h.   The delegate found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer to question 22 of Part C of the Form 866 when he declared that he had no right to enter or reside in, whether temporarily or permanently any other country than his country of nationality. The applicant declared that his country of nationality and habitual residence was [Country 1] however as indicated above the information before the delegate is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2] and has a right to enter into and reside lawfully in that country.

   i.    The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 42 of Part C of the Form 866 which asked why he left [Country 1] and he stated that following his father’s death his [uncle] (as well as the villagers) persecuted him and he was forced to flee to [Country 2] and subsequently [Country 3].

   j.     The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 43  of Part C of the Form 866 which asked what he feared may happen if he were forced to return to [Country 1] and the applicant stated that he would be killed. The delegate found that this answer was incorrect because information before it is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2], born in [Country 2] and was never a resident in [Country 1].

   k.   The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 44  of Part C of the Form 866 which asked who he believed may harm or mistreat him if he went back to [Country 1] and he replied that he feared his [uncle] and the villagers who were angry with him and his family. The delegate found that this answer was incorrect because information before it is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2], born in [Country 2] and was never a resident in [Country 1] when he claimed or at any other time.

   l.    The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 45  of Part C of the Form 866 which asked why he thinks he may be killed he stated that his uncle would kills him. The delegate found that this answer was incorrect because information before it is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2], born in [Country 2] and was never a resident in [Country 1].

   m. The delegate also found that the applicant provided an incorrect answer at question 46 of Part C of the Form 866 which asked whether the applicant believed that the authorities of [Country 1] can and will protect him if he returns and he stated that in the eyes of the [Country 1] authorities he is a bad man and no one would protect him. The delegate found that this answer was incorrect because information before it is that the applicant is a citizen of [Country 2], born in [Country 2] and was never a resident in [Country 1] either at the time he claimed or at any other time.

3. In relation to each of those instances of non-compliance the Tribunal asked the applicant for his comment. The applicant admitted that he was [Date 2], born in [Country 2] on [Date 2]. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was a citizen of [Country 2] and had never been a citizen or permanent resident of [Country 1]. He claims that he visited there and stayed only a few days.

4. The applicant told the Tribunal that his father was alive and that all of the claims he made in relation to [Country 1] were untrue in all aspects.

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the grounds for non-compliance are made out.

Conclusion on non-compliance

1. For these reasons, 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?

1. 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).

2. 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 content of the genuine document (if any)

·   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 circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

·   the present circumstances of the visa holder

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

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

·   the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

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

·   any contribution made by the holder to the community.

1. 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.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he was untruthful in regards to his protection visa application and the information he gave to the Department. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that given he had been so comprehensively untruthful to the Department in relation to his application, the Tribunal may form a view that he would continue to be untruthful in relation to his current claims. The applicant told the Tribunal, both at hearing and in his written submissions, there were several reasons;

   a.   He had not sworn on the Koran prior to his interview with the Department but had sworn on the Koran before the Tribunal therefore his evidence to it would be truthful;

   b.   He was afraid that his family would get into trouble if he told the truth, in particular his father who was a [specified employee];

   c.   He fell in love with the daughter of a man he claims has been subsequently charged and convicted with people smuggling offences – a Mr [C]. Mr [C] introduced him to members of the Taliban and forced him to do things that would get him into trouble;

   d.   He had been charged and convicted with [offence] in Australia and everybody at home knew. As a result he would not be able to go home and live in safety. His wife has divorced him and he has not seen his [child];

   e.   His father has disowned him and he cannot return home; and

   f.    Mr [C] is out of prison now and has turned everyone against him with untruthful stories.

3. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence implausible and unpersuasive. For example, despite claiming that his family, especially his father, had disowned him the Tribunal put to him that his father and family attended his wedding in [Country 2] in 2013. The applicant claimed it was just to put on a show for the village to let people know they still supported each other.

4. The applicant told the Tribunal he did not tell the truth because he had no evidence to support it. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had identify documents identifying him as a [Country 2], including his National Identity card, which he was able to obtain. The applicant said that his father would not give it to him because he had disowned him. The Tribunal does not accept this evidence as truthful.

5. It seems to the Tribunal that the applicant knowingly and deliberately deceived the Department by making claims he knew to be false, not just about his identity but his claims of persecution in [Country 1]. He subsequently claims that the reason he lied is because he will be persecuted if he returns to [Country 2] because of his activities with Mr [C] prior to his departure and because of his conviction in Australia of [offence].

6. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had been overseas for a total of some 270 days in the past few years. The applicant confirmed that he had been in [Country 2] for the entirety of that period. Asked by the Tribunal if he was threatened with harm or harmed in any way during his time spent in [Country 2] the applicant said he did not feel safe. He said that if he had felt safe he would have stayed with his wife and [child]. The Tribunal finds this explanation self-serving, at best.

7. The applicant has been in a relationship with an Australian citizen since around the time his wife in [Country 2] became pregnant with his [child], who was born in December 2015. He told the Tribunal he has not supported his ex-wife and [child] since their divorce/separation in 2016. He claims that his wife left him because of the [offence] conviction. He claims that he is depressed as is being medicated as a result. He claims that his life is ruined.

8. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s subsequent account of the reasons he departed [Country 2] and came to Australia is a truthful account but a continuation of his attempts, by any means, to remain in Australia. He has provided no documentary or other evidence to support his claims and the Tribunal does not accept that this account is any more truthful than his previous account.

9. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the circumstances described by the applicant, as to the reasons he lied to the Department, are such that the Tribunal would be moved or compelled to consider not cancelling his visa. The applicant was not incapacitated in relation to the choices he has made and, in the Tribunal’s mind, he has chosen to continue to mislead everyone in his efforts to remain in Australia.

10. The Tribunal has considered his present circumstances which he describes as desperate. He is not presently working because he claims he is depressed. He provided a Centrelink certificate indicated that he is taking Valium and an antidepressant. He is living with his current domestic partner but has provided no supporting evidence of that. He has no children in Australia to support and told the Tribunal he does not provide support to his [child] in [Country 2]. There are no reasons present in the applicant’s current circumstances that would move the Tribunal to consider not cancelling his visa.

11. The Tribunal has considered the subsequent behaviour of the applicant and any breaches of the laws since the non-compliance and notes that the applicant has been charged and convicted with [offences]. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment which was suspended after he served six months in prison. The applicant’s attitude in relation to this conviction, in the Tribunal’s mind, is absurd self-pity for the ruins in which the conviction has laid to his life. He has shown no regard to the victim or any remorse or even recognition that he, in fact, committed any crime at all.

12. The applicant claims that he has made a significant contribution to the community in relation to the assistance he has provided refugees and the fact that he has given or continues to give blood. The Tribunal notes this contribution with limited weight.

13. The Tribunal has carefully considered and weighed the entirety of the applicant’s circumstances individually and cumulatively and is not satisfied that the applicant’s visa should not be cancelled.

CONCLUSION

1. 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

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa.

Ann Duffield
Senior 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.