1924391 (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3765

1924391 (Migration) [2020] AATA 3765 (10 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1924391

MEMBER:Michael Cooke

DATE:10 July 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicant.

Statement made on 10 July 2020 at 3:02pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – ground for cancellation – incorrect information in visa application – bogus document – genuineness of academic qualifications – inability of the assessing authority post-facto to locate credentialing paperwork – Recognition of Prior Learning – non-compliance by education provider – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 103, 107, 109, 140
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 457.223

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 first named applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant breached ss.101 and 103. Of the Act. 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. For the purposes of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the only decision that is before the Tribunal is that with respect to the first named applicant (the applicant). The other visa was automatically cancelled as a consequence of that cancellation and not by a decision but by force of the operation of s.140(1) of the Act. As no decision was involved in the visa cancellation under s.140(1), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicant.

4. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

5. On 29 June 2020 the primary applicant informed the Tribunal that “I will not participate in the hearing, and consent to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers without taking further steps to allow me to appear.”

6. The primary applicant’s representative also forwarded the following submission:

   Dear Sir/ Madam

   I would like to submit the following elaboration, in support of the application for appeal with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the above-mentioned applicants.

   The basis of the visa cancellation was the departments belief that [the first named applicant] has submitted certificates of attainment of Certificate III and Certificate IV in [Discipline 1] issued by Metro College of Technology which it believes is bogus.

   The response for Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation submitted by the agent earlier as per the decision letter still stands as existing response in regards to this appeal. Moreover, I would like to put forth the following points in support of the applicants’ appeal.

   1.The applicant [the first named applicant] still believes that her certificates are genuine. At the time of issuance of the certificates, the college is supposed to keep records of all students for a period 7 years. It is the duty of the college to submit the records each year at that time to National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). The applicant called and asked the NCVER at 08 82308400 on Friday the 26th June 2020 if her records could be found with them. NCVER said that they do not have records of all students but only of those students who were funded by the government at that time.

   2.Metro College of Technology at the time of closing down its operation must have submitted all its records to Queensland State Education Authority. Therefore, instead of ASQA, the department must try to confirm the genuineness of the certificates from NCVER and the Queensland Education Authority.

   3.[The first named applicant] maintains that she has been the victim of non-compliance of Metro College of Queensland as she believes that the records must have been submitted to NCVER or the Queensland Education Authority.

   4.The applicant is still trying to gather evidences to determine if her certificates are genuine or not.

   Therefore, I request you to please provide the applicant a benefit of doubt if the records cannot be endorsed by NCVER or the Queensland Education Authority.

   Thanking You

   [Ms A]

   MARN: [number]

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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?

11. 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 ss. 101 and 103 in the following respects:

12. The information on file before the Tribunal discloses that on 1 August 2017, [the first named applicant] (the primary applicant) lodged an application for a Temporary Work (Skilled)(subclass 457) visa electronically (via the internet) as she was nominated to work in the skilled occupation of [Occupation 1]. As part of the application she completed the ‘Application for a Temporary Business Entry Visa’ application form.

13. On page 8 under the section entitled ‘Relevant qualifications, skills and experience’ she provided the following answers (in italics):

    Provide details regarding the applicant’s qualification, training and skill relevant to the proposed nominated position.

    Relevant qualifications: Certificate III & IV in [Discipline 1]

    Relevant skills: Certificate III & IV in [Discipline 1]

    Work experience as [Occupation 1]

14. On 1 August 2017 the primary applicant provided certificates from her education provider (Metro College of Technology Pty. Ltd) which demonstrated that she had obtained the relevant qualification which she had she mentioned in the application form. She provided the Department with two certificates (dated 14 June 2013) issued by Metro College of Technology Pty. Ltd. stating that she had fulfilled the requirements to obtain the qualifications of Certificate III in [Discipline 1] and Certificate IV in [Discipline 1]. The Certificates indicated that she had obtained the qualifications through a combination of credit transfer from some prior learning and via study for the qualification.

15. On 20 April 2018, she was granted a Temporary Work (Skilled)(subclass 457) visa based on the above answers and supporting information. It was found that she had satisfied the relevant criteria for such visas and which are found within Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 - in particular 457.223(4)(da).

    457.223

    (1) The applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2) or (4).

    (4) The applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

    (a) each of the following applies:

    (i) a nomination of an occupation in relation to the applicant has been approved under section 140GB of the Act;

    (ii) the nomination was made by a person who was a standard business sponsor at the time the nomination was approved;

    (iii) the approval of the nomination has not ceased as provided for in regulation 2.75; and (aa) the nominated occupation is specified in an instrument in writing for paragraph 2.72(10)(a) or (aa) that is in effect; and (ba) either:

    (i) the nominated occupation is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; or

    (ii) each of the following applies:

    (A) the applicant is employed to work in the nominated occupation;

    (B) if the person who made the approved nomination met paragraph 2.59(d) or (e), or paragraph 2.68(e) or (f), in the person’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor, the applicant is employed to work in a position in the person’s business or in a business of an associated entity of the person;

    (C) if the person who made the approved nomination met paragraph 2.59(h), or paragraph 2.68(i), in the person’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor, the applicant is employed to work in a position in the person’s business; and

    (d) the Minister is satisfied that:

    (i) the applicant’s intention to perform the occupation is genuine; and

    (ii) the position associated with the nominated occupation is genuine; and

    (da) the applicant has the skills, qualifications and employment background that the Minister considers necessary to perform the tasks of the nominated occupation;

    Non-compliance with section 101(b)

16. Subsequently (the Department) become aware that the primary applicant appeared to have provided false and misleading information in her application form along with bogus documents - to support her application. The Department became aware of this claimed behaviour on 23 November 2018 because the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) advised the Department that they did not have any record of the primary applicant having studied Certificate III in [Discipline 1] or Certificate IV of [Discipline 1] at Metro College of Technology Pty. Ltd. Therefore, the ASQA had been unable to verify the primary applicant’s qualifications as being a true and accurate reflection of completed studies. The Department concluded (based on this information) that the applicant appeared not to have complied with section 101(b) of the Act. As a consequence, her Temporary Work (Skilled)(subclass 457) visa was liable for cancellation under section 109 of the Act.

17. The applicant stated in her application that she holds a ‘Certificate III in [Discipline 1] and Certificate IV in [Discipline 1]’. The Department concluded that this information appeared to be incorrect and that she had provided ‘incorrect information’ regarding her skills and qualifications in order to meet the skills requirement for her nominated occupation of [Occupation 1].

    Non-compliance with section 103

18. The Department’s delegate then examined the situation further and reached a further conclusion that the primary applicant had not complied with section 103 of the Act either. This was because - in support of her visa application - she had submitted two certificates issued by Metro College of Technology Pty. Ltd. dated 14 June 2013 which appeared to the delegate to be ‘bogus documents’ as defined by paragraph (b) of sections 5(1) of the Act which states:

    A bogus document,

    ‘(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so’

19. This conclusion was strengthened because on 23 November 2018 the ASQA notified the Department that it did not have any record of the primary applicant having been issued any qualifications by Metro College of Technology and were not able to verify the qualifications as true and accurate reflections of studies completed.

20. In fact, based on the information before the Department, it appeared that the Certificate III in [Discipline 1] and the Certificate IV in [Discipline 1] documents (issued by Metro College of Technology Pty. Ltd) were ‘bogus documents’ because they met the definition in s.5(1) as they were ‘counterfeit or had been altered by a person who does not have the authority to do so’.

21. Therefore, based on the above information it appeared that the primary applicant had not complied with both s.101(b) and s.103 of the Act. As a result of this conclusion her Temporary Work (Skilled) (Subclass 457) visa was liable for cancellation under section 109 of the Migration Act 1958.

22. The primary applicant has forcefully denied the claim that she has breached the Act and issued a Statutory Declaration as follows:

    I, [the first named applicant], of [address], in the State of New South Wales solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

    1.        I say that I have worked in Nepal for the position of [Occupation 1] from April 2007 to May 2009

    2.        I have obtained my Certificate III and Certificate IV qualifications through Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) based on my above experience.

    3.        I have applied for Recognition Prior Learning (RPL) to Metro College of Technology through the College's authorised agent [Mr B] who runs [an education and migration service] in Sydney.

    4.        The agent submitted my resume, experience certificates, photos and other relevant documents to meet the requirements for these courses based on my experience. The agent also interviewed me many times before we are finally able to obtain my above-mentioned qualifications. Annexed and marked A is the letter provided by the agent.

    5.        I felt embarrassed to receive the recent letter from the Department of Home Affairs alleging me of providing false and misleading documents.

    6.        I say that I fully trust my skills and I have trusted that agent who helped me obtained the qualification and believe the Recognition of Prior Learning was done through a due process.

    7.        Now, I have enquired about my qualification to the agent and about the College. The agent says that the College has closed down long time ago. They cannot contact them now. They say that only the reason my qualification is not verifiable may be due to the closure of the College.

    8.        I have received the qualification from the education provider who was registered to the Department of Education at that time. My qualification was obtained following a due process when the provider was in operation. Therefore, I simply do not understand and I have no idea how my qualification is not verifiable now.

    9.        I am a skilled and experienced [Occupation 1]. I believe that based on my skills and experience, I was offered the position of [Occupation 1] to work for [Employer 1]. I have worked for this company for 2 years from July 2013 to June 2015.

    10.      I say that I was able to get another job offer from [Employer 2] for the position of [Occupation 1] because of my skills and experience. I worked for this company for more than a year from August 2015 to September 2016.

    11.      I have then applied for another SC457 visa to work for [Employer 3]. I have been granted the visa to work for this company. I have been working in the position of [Occupation 1] from July 2017 to present.

    12.      During the time of application of my last SC457 visa, had I not provided the above qualification, I would have still satisfied the requirements for SC457 visa because of my long experience in the position of [Occupation 1] in line with the ANZSCO requirements.

    13.      I didn't need RPL to obtain the visa as it would not have made any difference in outcome of my application of visa due to my experience.

    14.      Therefore, I say that I never provided false and misleading information to the Department to obtain my visa.

23. The Tribunal offered the applicant an opportunity to be heard at a hearing where these issues could be further aired and explored. Instead it has been informed by her representative that the primary applicant has forgone he right to f a hearing. Instead she has preferred (in lieu of a hearing) to forward a submission (from her representative) in rebuttal of the Departmental findings.

24. In her representative’s submission the primary applicant forcefully suggests that the fault exists with the responsible authorities (NCVER and the Queensland Education Authority and Metro College of Queensland). She insists their failure to to properly warehouse/file her academic results has resulted in her latter-day inability to access and verify the documents for the purposes of her review. She claims as a result that she cannot adequately prove she genuinely acquitted her professional vocational courses and provided correct information to the Department - contemporaneously. She argues that this is a sound basis for the cancellation decision to be set aside on review.

25. The Tribunal is aware that integrity checks were performed by the Department (utilising the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)) who advised the Department that they did not have any record of the primary applicant having studied Certificate III in [Discipline 1] or Certificate IV of [Discipline 1] at Metro College of Technology Pty. Ltd. Secondly as she had presented two vocational certificates as proof of having the required qualifications they too could not be verified so the logical conclusion was that ipso facto the qualification Certificates were ‘bogus documents’.

26. The applicant in rebuttal insists that:

    At the time of issuance of the certificates, the college is supposed to keep records of all students for a period 7 years. It is the duty of the college to submit the records each year at that time to National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). The applicant called and asked the NCVER at 08 82308400 on Friday the 26th June 2020 if her records could be found with them. NCVER said that they do not have records of all students but only of those students who were funded by the government at that time.

    Metro College of Technology at the time of closing down its operation must have submitted all its records to Queensland State Education Authority. Therefore, instead of ASQA, the department must try to confirm the genuineness of the certificates from NCVER and the Queensland Education Authority.

    [The first named applicant] maintains that she has been the victim of non-compliance of Metro College of Queensland as she believes that the records must have been submitted to NCVER or the Queensland Education Authority.

27. The Tribunal is aware from information on the Department file that Metro College closed around 4 December 2015 due to non-compliance with Departmental requirements. The primary applicant was issued with her qualification (according to her representative) on 14 June 2013 well before the provider was shut down (D1, f. 62). Her representative has insisted that:

    The primary applicant ‘is a skilled and experienced [Occupation 1] working for an Australian Business who has been working in the industry since 2007’. The visa holder also worked in Australian businesses in that position since 2013…the visa holder believes that she had obtained her qualification through Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) process clearly allowable under the laws as per guidelines provided by the Department of Education. The Department clearly provide guidance to the intended applicant that the person having experience in Australia or overseas can obtain statement of attainment or nationally recognised qualification if applicable. The department also allows the education providers to provide qualification if applicable following the procedure. A person who has knowledge and skills can obtain qualification using the assessment only pathways as per the chart below. The visa holder is a skilled and experienced [Occupation 1] therefore, she is given responsibilities to work in the Australian [Industry 1]. This would not have been possible if the visa holder was not qualified and experienced for the task of [Occupation 1]. Therefore, we submit that her qualifications are not bogus documents. But they were obtained using a proper RPL process.

    Now, you have stated that the Australian Skills and Qualification Authority (ASQA) could not verify the qualification. It is the responsibility of the Education provider and ASQA to have updated records of all the qualifications issued to their students. If the records are not with ASQA, how did you come to the conclusion that the qualifications are bogus? When a hospital closes down, can you conclude a birth certificates issued by the hospital to be bogus? Therefore, we submit that her qualifications are not bogus documents. But they were obtained using a proper RPL process.

    In addition, you are intending to cancel her visa based on the qualification provided to the Department for her visa granted in 2018. We submit that she would still qualify and obtain the visa even if the RPL qualifications were not provided due to her long experience in the occupation which is well over the period prescribed by ANZSCO. In sum, this would not have made any difference in the outcome of her visa application.

    In addition, we request you to consider the fact that the visa holder has been living in Australia and working for Australian businesses for long time supporting Australian economy.

    She has provided a statutory declaration providing her detailed circumstances which is attached herewith.

    Based on the above and attachment, we request you not to cancel her visa.

1. The Tribunal makes several observations. The applicant has been provided with vocational Certificates by an education provider two years prior to its demise for non-compliance with ASQA protocols and stipulations. The education provider at the time (Metro) was plainly regarded as in compliance at the time of the issuance of the Certificates. Subsequently Metro has closed following the ASQA decision on non-compliance.

2. The Tribunal notes that the primary applicant contacted the NCVER very recently and has repeated (her version of) what the NCVER authority informed her on 26 June 2020. The primary applicant was granted her visa on 20 April 2018 based on her existing qualifications which date to their recognition (in 2013). Importantly, and shortly after, on 23 November 2018, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) advised the Department that they did not have any record of the primary applicant having studied Certificate III in [Discipline 1] or Certificate IV of [Discipline 1] at Metro College of Technology Pty. Ltd.

3. The Tribunal has considered the information before it and makes the following findings. The Tribunal is satisfied that the primary applicant’s Certificates were properly issued at the time by a registered college - in good standing. The applicant had relied significantly for the issuance of the Certificates on her substantial history of working (previously in Nepal) in the profession of [Occupation 1] (using Recognition of Prior Learning). She has continued to work as a [Occupation 1] continuously in Australia. Years after the issuance of her Certificates the ASQA has decided that Metro College was non-compliant. The Tribunal is unable to ascertain why from Internet search of the ASQA site.

4. The Tribunal finds it would be most unfair to the primary applicant to now call into question the bona fides of her qualifications and cancel her visa as a result. Firstly, because she has worked and been employed continuously as a [Occupation 1]. She informs that she utilised Recognition of Prior Learning as a factor in her grant of the Certificates. She is, plainly, not engaged in some form of professional subterfuge to bamboozle the Department.

5. Importantly, she informs that she is unable to ascertain from the authority (which is tasked to maintain records of valid qualifications) any record of her having studied Certificate III in [Discipline 1] or Certificate IV of [Discipline 1] at Metro College of Technology Pty. Ltd. This is despite the physical possession of and prior acceptance by the Department of these qualifications. She makes the important point that the authority is required to collate the records from the various education providers. It was the duty of Metro to provide the documents to the authority. They apparently did not do so. Thus, the authority maintains it has no records to provide her with the truth. The Tribunal can only surmise that such incompetence (by Metro) was one reason why its registration was revoked for non-compliance. Nevertheless, such a Catch-22 scenario cannot be sheeted home to the primary applicant.

6. The Tribunal finds that she (self-evidently) has the professional skills to be found eligible for the qualification. She was issued with the formal qualifications by a provider in good registration standing at the time of issuance. Years later, the Department has called into question the validity of her qualifications. This was following grant of a second Subclass 457 visa to her. The cancellation is based essentially on the inability of the assessing authority post-facto to locate her credentialing paperwork from a defunct education provider (Metro). Thus, it says it cannot prove that her qualifications are not bogus, and this finding has initiated a cancellation of her visa. The Tribunal is unaware why such an investigation begun. However, due to her inability to contradict (under the above circumstances) the ASQA findings - the primary applicant is powerless to gainsay its findings and to prove her integrity and that of her Certificates. The Tribunal finds such a basis for cancellation is manifestly too remote and unsatisfactory to engage the onerous cancellation power in the Act.

7. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was not non-compliance with ss.101 and 103 by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

8. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.

   DECISION

9. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

10. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicant.

    Michael Cooke
    Senior Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)

    5Interpretation

    (1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

    bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

    (a)     purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

    (b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

    (c)      was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

    97Interpretation

    In this Subdivision:

    application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.

    passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).

    Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).

    98Completion of visa application

    A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.

    99Information is answer

    Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.

    100Incorrect answers

    For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.

    101Visa applications to be correct

    A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:

    (a)all questions on it are answered; and

    (b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.

    103Bogus documents not to be given etc.

    A non‑citizen must not give, present, [produce]* or provide to an officer, an authorised system, the Minister, the Immigration Assessment Authority, or the Tribunal performing a function or purpose under this Act, a bogus document or cause such a document to be so given, presented, [produced]* or provided.

    * This wording applies to documents given, presented, produced or provided on or after 4 November 2014: Schedule 7 to Counter Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (No.116, 2014).

    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.