2000781 (Migration) - [2021] AATA 3794

2000781 (Migration) [2021] AATA 3794 (1 September 2021)
Corrigendum
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2000781
MEMBER:Alison Murphy
DATE OF DECISION:  1 September 2021
DATE CORRIGENDUM
SIGNED:28 September 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
AMENDMENT:  The following corrections are made to the decision:
·At paragraph 7 on page 1 of the decision record, the words ‘[Age]-year-old male’ should be deleted, and substituted with the words ‘[Age 1]-year-old male’.
·At dot point 8 of paragraph 27 on page 6 of the decision record, the date ‘[Date]’ should be deleted, and substituted with the date ’[Date 1]’.

Alison Murphy
Member

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2000781
MEMBER:Alison Murphy
DATE:1 September 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s (Subclass 155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa.

Statement made on 01 September 2021 at 9:55am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa – Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) – incorrect answers in protection visa application – previous application and personal and family details – included under another name as brother in second cousin’s humanitarian visa application – minor at the time and unaware of application – did not ‘make’ application – national identity card, consistent answers in other visa applications and statutory declarations by applicant and cousin – review decided without hearing – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 107, 109, 360, 376
CASES
CTU17 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 449; 344 FLR 38
MIBP v Kim [2014] FCAFC 47; 221 FCR 523
Soondur v MIMA [2002] FCAFC 324; 122 FCR 578
SZVBN v MHA [2018] FCA 1960
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s (Subclass 155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the resident return visa on the basis that the applicant breached s 101 of the Act by providing incorrect answers in his protection visa application.
The matter was listed for an in-person hearing on 27 August 2021. Due to COVID‑19 public health directions operating in Victoria at that time, the Tribunal was unable to conduct any in‑person hearings and the matter was rescheduled for a video hearing.
On 20 August 2012 the Tribunal received submissions and documents relevant to the review. Having considered that material, the Tribunal formed the view that it should decide the review in the applicant’s favour on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Act.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his legal representative.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a [Age]-year-old male who arrived in Australia by boat [in] February 2012 and identified himself as [the applicant], a Shia Muslim of Hazara ethnicity from Afghanistan. He was granted a protection visa on 3 July 2012 and the resident return visa on 9 March 2018.
On 29 May 2013 the applicant lodged a Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 202) visa application in respect of his mother and siblings. That application was refused on 1 December 2014. On 7 March 2016 the applicant applied for a partner visa in respect of his spouse, [Ms A], born [DOB] and the delegate’s decision indicates that the application is still being processed. The applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral on 12 August 2016 which was refused on the basis that he was not a permanent resident.
The Department subsequently formed the view that the applicant had been included in an earlier Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 202) visa application under the name of [Alias 1], undertaking a forensic Facial Image Comparison Report which compared a photograph of [Alias 1] with the photograph of the applicant supplied with his protection visa application. The Facial Image Comparison Report concluded those photographs were of the same person. A Biometric Information Comparison Report compared the personal details given by the applicant for his family members against personal details for the family members of [Alias 1].
On 29 May 2019 a delegate of the Minister sent the applicant a Notification of Intention to Consider Cancellation under s 107 of the Act (the s 107 notice), advising him that the Department was considering the cancellation of his protection visa on the ground that he had given incorrect information in his visa application.
The s 107 notice identified the information provided in the protection visa application that was considered to be incorrect. In summary, it suggested that the applicant had given incorrect information about his name and date of birth, his visa history, his family composition and his relatives in Australia. In particular, it set out the results of the Facial Image Comparison which concluded that he was the same person as [Alias 1] who was included in a Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 202) visa lodged in 2010, proposed by a person identifying himself as [Alias 1]’s brother, [Mr B]. The s 107 notice invited the applicant to comment on the possible non‑compliance set out in the notice and whether his visa should be cancelled.
The applicant responded to the s 107 notice on 6, 12 and 16 June 2019, providing submissions, statutory declarations of the applicant and [Mr B], a certified and translated copy of the applicant’s taskera and a letter of support of [Mr C]. In summary, that response submitted that the applicant had not provided incorrect information in the protection visa application, that the s 107 notice did not engage s 107 of the Act and that the s 107 notice should be rescinded. The later correspondence also included documents and submissions relevant to the discretionary factors to be considered if the ground for cancellation was made out.
On 9 January 2020 a delegate decided to cancel the applicant’s visa, finding the applicant had provided incorrect information in the manner set out in the s 107 notice. In the exercise of her discretion to cancel the visa, the delegate considered the discretionary factors contained in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’ but concluded the visa should be cancelled. In considering Australia’s international obligations as required by PAM3, the delegate noted that an International Treaties Obligations Assessment would be completed to assess whether the applicant would be at risk of harm in Afghanistan and therefore the delegate did not make her own assessment of those matters.
The applicant sought a review of the decision to cancel the visa from this Tribunal. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.
THE REVIEW PROCEEDING
Non-disclosure certificate
The Tribunal has before it electronic versions of the departmental file relating to the cancellation of the resident return visa which includes some documents which appear to be taken from the files relating to the grant of the protection visa in 2012 and the application for the global humanitarian visa in 2010.
The delegate has placed restrictions on some of the material given to the Tribunal by the Department by issuing a certificate under s 376 of the Act.
The certificate was issued on 10 August 2021 and states that disclosure of the Identity and Biometric Report (folios 1–7) and the Forensic Examination Report [Number] dated 21 May 2019 contained on the Department’s cancellation file would be contrary to the public interest because it may disclose lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law which would be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods.
A copy of that certificate was provided to the applicant’s representative, who submitted that it should be treated as invalid on its face because:
a)It does not specify which limb of s 376 applies to its contents;
b)It does not specify how its contents might form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth for non-disclosure, given that it does not indicate it is material given in confidence;
c)Even if the purported disclosure of ‘investigative methods’ is sufficient to bring the certificate within the ambit of s 376(1)(a), it is not clear how those materials disclose such methods.
I consider the s 376 certificate to be valid on its face. While it does not specify the subsection it relies upon, the contents make plain that it is subsection s 376(1)(a), being disclosure of the certificated documents may disclose lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law which would be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods. I consider this may form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth for non-disclosure. Having considered the certificated documents, I accept that their disclosure may prejudice the effectiveness of the lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law to which the certificate refers.
Where a certificate is issued under s 376, the Tribunal may have regard to any matter contained in the document or the information and, if it thinks it appropriate to do so, disclose any matter contained in the document or the information to the applicant or any other person who has given oral or written evidence to the Tribunal.
I note the existence and findings of the Facial Image Comparison Report have already been disclosed to the applicant in the s 107 notice and the delegate’s decision. Other parts of the certificated information set out the personal details and family composition of [Mr B], and this information has also been disclosed in the s 107 notice and the delegate’s decision.
The applicant in this case does not dispute that he was included in the visa application made in the name of [Alias 1], nor that he is related to [Mr B], albeit he asserts that relationship to be more distant than the notice alleges. I am satisfied the applicant has been provided with the substance of the information linking him to the identity of [Alias 1] and that he has acknowledged being included in the earlier visa application under that name. For these reasons, I have decided not to exercise my discretion to disclose further details of the certificated documents or information.
the legislative framework
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.
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.
I note that the s 107 notice sets out in detail the information given by the applicant in his protection visa application that is now said to be incorrect, as well as particulars of the basis on which that information is now said to be false. I am satisfied that information is set out in enough detail to allow the applicant to understand and respond to the non‑compliance allegation.
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?
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s 107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s 107 notice was non‑compliance with s 101(b) in the following respects:
·At Question 1 of Part B of Form 866, in response to the question “Give details of ALL persons included in this application” the visa holder answered “[the applicant], [Date 1].” The delegate considered this to be incorrect, because the facial image comparison conducted by the Department indicates that the applicant is also known by the name [Alias 1], born [Date 2];
- At Question 3 of Part B of Form 866, in response to the question “Has any person named in Question 1 previously made any other type of application to the Department (including a Parent visa)?” the visa holder answered “No.” The delegate considered this to be incorrect, because the applicant had made an earlier visa application under the name [Alias 1];
- At Question 11 of Part B of Form 866 in response to the question “Are there any members of the same family unit who are NOT in Australia but are not included in this visa application?” the visa holder answered “Yes” and provided details of his parents and siblings. The delegate considered this to be incorrect because it differed from the details of family members provided in the visa application made in the name of [Alias 1];
- At Question 12 of Part B of Form 866 in response to the question “Do any of the persons included in this application and named in Question 1 have close relatives who are in Australia at the time of the application?” the visa holder answered “No.” The delegate considered this to be incorrect because the visa application made in the name of [Alias 1] declared a brother in Australia known as [Mr B], born [DOB];
- At Question 22 of Part B of Form 866, the applicant signed a declaration stating that all of the information he had supplied was complete, correct and up to date in every detail. The delegate considered this to be incorrect due to the other incorrect answers provided;
- At Question 1 of Part C of Form 866, the visa holder answered “[the applicant]” to a question asking his full name. The delegate considered this to be incorrect, because the facial image comparison conducted by the Department indicates that the applicant had previously applied for a visa under the name [Alias 1];
- At Question 4 of Part C of Form 866, which asked what other names he had been known by, the applicant responded “[Alias 2]” but did not disclose that he had also been known by the name [Alias 1];
- At Question 8 of Part C of Form 866, the visa holder answered “[Date 1] and age [Age 2] years” to a question asking his date of birth. The delegate considered this to be incorrect, because the applicant had previously applied for a visa under the name [Alias 1] with the date of birth [Date 2], indicating the applicant’s date of birth may not be [Date];
- At Question 67 of Part C of Form 866, the applicant signed a declaration stating that the information he had supplied was complete, correct and up to date in every detail. The delegate considered this to be incorrect due to the other incorrect answers provided.
It is not in dispute that the applicant was included in the 2010 global humanitarian visa application under the name [Alias 1]. That visa application appears on the departmental file and indicates the primary applicant was [Ms D], stated to be the mother of both [Alias 1] and the proposer [Mr B].
However the applicant maintains that he did not ‘make’ that 2010 visa application, and that all of the information contained in the 2012 protection visa application is correct. In considering whether the applicant has provided incorrect information in his protection visa application in the manner set out in the s 107 notice, it is necessary to determine the applicant’s correct identity and whether he ‘made’ the 2010 visa application.
The applicant’s correct identity
I accept the applicant’s correct identity is [the applicant] as stated in his protection visa application, notwithstanding his inclusion under a different name in the earlier visa application. In making that assessment, I note the following:
·The applicant has provided detailed evidence as to the circumstances in which he came to be included in the 2010 global humanitarian visa application proposed by [Mr B], as has [Mr B] himself. [Mr B] states that he included the applicant as his brother in the visa application at his mother’s insistence because they were second cousins distantly related on their mother’s side. He provided photographs of his own siblings and the applicant but did not otherwise discuss the visa application with the applicant or his family members in Afghanistan. The applicant states that he knew his second cousin was making enquiries about how to bring him to Australia at the insistence of his own mother, who wanted to see him safe;
·Both [Mr B] and the applicant have consistently stated that the applicant was not aware of his inclusion in the 2010 global humanitarian visa application. The applicant states that he had no idea about the application that was made and that he was too young to sign any documents or give any information in relation to the application;
·The applicant’s evidence about his identity and family composition is consistent with his protection visa application as well as the application for a Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 202) visa in respect of his parents and siblings that he lodged in May 2013. It is also consistent with his partner visa application lodged in March 2016;
·The applicant has provided his Afghan taskera to the Department. His identity details and the name of his father are consistent with his claimed identity and family composition;
·By contrast, there is little evidence that the applicant’s correct identity is [Alias 1], that evidence being only the inclusion of the applicant’s photograph in the earlier global humanitarian visa application proposed by [Mr B] in 2010. As set out above, [Mr B] has given sworn evidence that the applicant is not his brother [Alias 1] as stated in the 2010 visa application, rather the applicant is [the applicant] and they are second cousins. The materials before the Tribunal indicate that no taskera or identity document was submitted in respect of [Alias 1], nor was the visa application signed by the applicant or any person with parental responsibilities towards the applicant.
For these reasons, I accept that the applicant’s correct identity is [the applicant] as stated in his protection visa application. I accept the applicant does not know his exact date of birth, relying on his mother’s advice that he was about [Age 2] at the time he came to Australia. I accept that the date of birth provided in his protection visa application ([Date 1]) was assigned to him by the Department while he was on Christmas Island, after an age assessment that concluded he was [Age 3] years old at that time.
DFAT confirms that the Afghan authorities did not historically issue birth certificates, which remain uncommon in Afghanistan. DFAT states the high number of home births makes the process of registering births challenging and the reporting of birth dates is unreliable and reported dates likely to be approximate.[1] It was in that context that the applicant’s date of birth was estimated to be [Date 1] in his protection visa application. While that date is unlikely to be completely accurate, I accept there is no more reliable information available to the applicant or the Tribunal.
[1] DFAT Country Information Report: Afghanistan 27 June 2019 at 5.49

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the applicant’s correct identity is [the applicant], date of birth [Date 1] as stated in his protection visa application. I accept that he was not known and had never been known by the name of [Alias 1].
I accept that the information provided in respect of his family members in that protection visa application was correct and that he did not have any close relatives in Australia at that time, noting that Question 12 defines close relatives to include parents, brothers, sisters, children, stepchildren, stepparents, stepbrothers and stepsisters not shown at Question 1. As [Mr B] is the applicant’s second cousin, he is not a close relative for the purpose of question 12. It follows that I am not satisfied that the applicant gave incorrect information in response to Questions 1, 11 and 12 of Part B of the Form 866 or Questions 1, 4 and 8 of Part C of the Form 866 in the manner set out in the s 107 notice.
Did the applicant ‘make’ the 2010 global humanitarian visa application?
In considering whether the applicant gave incorrect information at Question 3 of Part B of Form 866, I note that the 2010 visa application is not signed by the applicant, nor by any person with parental responsibilities to him. Rather, the 2010 visa application was proposed by his second cousin [Mr B] and the primary applicant was [Mr B]’s mother, also distantly related to the applicant. The applicant was unaware that the visa application was being made and did not become aware of it until receiving the s 107 notice in 2019.
Notwithstanding the above matters, there is no dispute that the applicant was included in the 2010 global humanitarian visa application under the name of [Alias 1]. However Question 3 relevantly asks a visa applicant not whether they have been included in any other type of visa application, but whether they have ‘made’ any other type of visa application. It is submitted on the applicant’s behalf that he did not ‘make’ the visa application as he was a minor at the time and lacked the capacity to do so.
As set out in the submissions of the applicant’s representative to the Department and the Tribunal, the Australian courts have held that the question of whether an applicant for a protection visa who is under the age of legal majority has ‘made’ a previous application for such a visa will involve consideration of their capacity to do so. In Soondur v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Full Federal Court stated that:
It is trite to say that an act generally only has legal effect if the mind of the person performing it accompanies its performance. The making of a purported application by a person who lacks capacity to make such an application will not be regarded as an application. At common law, infants (ie persons under the age of twenty-one) were regarded as lacking capacity to do many things, particularly to enter into contracts other than certain defined classes of contracts. Commonly, the age of majority has been reduced by statute to eighteen.[2]
[2] Soondur v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 324; 122 FCR 578 Gray J [35]; Goldberg J agreeing
The Full Court went on to state:
With respect to the making of applications pursuant to the Migration Act generally, the situation seems to be that it is necessary to enquire whether a particular non‑adult applicant in fact had capacity (in the sense of sufficient understanding of the nature of the act involved) to make an application, at the time when the application was made … Thus, before it can be determined that a person “made” a previous application, there must be a factual enquiry as to the age of that person and as to his or her capacity to understand the nature of such an application.[3]
[3] Ibid Gray J [38]; Goldberg J [109]
The Court’s decision in Soondur has been cited with approval in a number of decisions since then.[4] While that line of authority dealt with the construction of s 48A of the Act (and ultimately led to legislative amendments to that section), the limitations imposed by s 48A on future visa applications have no application here. However the Court’s analysis of whether a visa application has been ‘made’ by a visa applicant continues to be applicable to other factual scenarios which call for determination of the same issue.
[4] CTU17 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 449; 344 FLR 38; SZVBN v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1960
More recently the Full Federal Court specifically rejected the Minister’s submission that a visa application is ‘made’ by any person named in the application as a person on whose behalf an application is made. In that case the court considered a visa application made on behalf of a 14- year-old applicant by her father. The visa application was not signed by the 14- year-old applicant and she was unaware of it at the time it was made. The court concluded that the visa application was not a visa for which she had applied.[5]
[5] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Kim [2014] FCAFC 47; 221 FCR 523 [40]
In this case the applicant was approximately [Age 4] years old at the time the 2010 global humanitarian visa application was made. He was living with his family as a refugee in Quetta, Pakistan. His protection visa application records that his entire education history comprised of two months of religious studies at a house up the road from his house and nine months of study at [an] English Centre. In my view, these matters are not suggestive of a minor who is likely to have the legal capacity to understand the nature of the 2010 visa application.
There is no other evidence before the Tribunal that would indicate the applicant had the capacity to make the visa application in 2010 and I find that he did not. Therefore he did not ‘make’ the 2010 global humanitarian visa application for the purposes of s 101. It follows that the applicant did not provide incorrect information at Question 3 of Part B of the Form 866 when he answered ‘no’ in response to the question asking if he had previously made any other type of application to the Department.
My finding that the applicant did not ‘make’ the 2010 global humanitarian visa application does not mean that the visa application was invalid. Rather, the Full Court has held that whether a visa application was ‘made’ by a person named in the application is a separate issue from whether the visa application was valid. The Full Court judgment records that it was not taken to any provision in the Migration Act which deemed an application of which the applicant did not have knowledge to have been made by the applicant, either for the purposes of s 48 or more generally.[6]
[6] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Kim [2014] FCAFC 47; 221 FCR 523 [38]; [40]; [41]
For the reasons set out above, I have found that the applicant did not provide incorrect information at Questions 1, 3, 11 or 12 of Part B of the Form 866 or Questions 1, 4 or 8 of Part C of the Form 866. As such, it follows that he did not give incorrect information at Questions 22 of Part B and 67 of Part C of the Form 866 when he declared that the information he had supplied was complete, correct and up to date in every detail.
It follows that the applicant did not give incorrect information in the manner set out in the s 107 notice and the ground for cancellation is not made out.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was no non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s 107 notice. It follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s (Subclass 155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa.
Alison Murphy
Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)
5Interpretation
(1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(a)     purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or
(b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
(c)      was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.
97Interpretation
In this Subdivision:
application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.
passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).
Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).
98Completion of visa application
A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.
99Information is answer
Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.
100Incorrect answers
For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.
101Visa applications to be correct
A non‑citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:
(a)all questions on it are answered; and
(b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.
107Notice of incorrect applications
(1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:
(a)     giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and
(b)     stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:
(i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:
(A)shows that there was compliance; and
(B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or
(ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:
(A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and
(B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and
(c)      stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:
(i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or
(ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or
(iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and
(d)     setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and
(e)      informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and
(f)      requiring the holder:
(i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and
(ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.
(1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:
(a)     in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or
(b)     otherwise—14 days.
(1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:
(a)     visas of a stated class; or
(b)     visa holders in stated circumstances; or
(c)      visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or
(d)     visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.
(2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.
108Decision about non‑compliance
The Minister is to:
(a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.
109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect
(1)The Minister, after:
(a)     deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and
(b)     considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and
(c)      having regard to any prescribed circumstances;
may cancel the visa.
(2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.