2010552 (Migration)

[2021] AATA 2632

2010552 (Migration) [2021] AATA 2632 (17 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2010552

MEMBER:Andrew McLean Williams

DATE:17 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first-named applicant’s Subclass 187 -  Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa.

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

Statement made on 17 May 2021 at 4:15pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) – incorrect information and bogus documents – birth certificate and passport from birth country, citizenship and passport from third country – national registry of birth country has no original record – born in rural area and birth probably not registered – left with no documents to escape ethnic conflict – returned after independence and was issued birth certificate and passport after basic questioning – documents accepted by third country – discretion to cancel visa – visa and work history, and value to employer – settled life and contribution to society – member of family unit – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 103, 107, 109, 140
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41

CASE
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the first-named applicant’s Subclass 187 - Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa, pursuant to s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis of having concluded that the applicant did not comply with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act, by his having given incorrect information and bogus documents to the department as part of the applicant’s application for the Subclass 187 visa. 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, that held by the second-named applicant (the applicant’s de-facto partner), was automatically cancelled in consequence of that cancellation, that is not by any decision, but by force of operation of s.140(1) of the Act. As no ‘decision’ was involved in the cancellation of the visa of the second-named applicant, the Tribunal now has no jurisdiction with respect that applicant.

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 16 March 2021, by means of video link to give evidence and present submissions.  They were each represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, [Mr A] of [Law Firm]. [Mr A] also attended the Tribunal hearing, also by remote means.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with any of ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act.

7. Broadly speaking, these provisions require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and/or on their passenger cards; not to provide ‘bogus documents’ (as defined), and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they may become aware subsequently; as well as to notify the department of any relevant changes in their circumstances, after the date of application.

8. The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa is not enlivened. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are now attached to this decision.

9. In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107, and that the notice issued under s.107 did comply with the statutory requirements.

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

10. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance as now described in the s.107 notice, and, if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

11. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was an alleged non-compliance with each of s.101(b), and s.103, of the Act. Those provisions provide:

    s.101    A non-citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:

    …/

    (b)      no incorrect answers are given or provided.

    s.103 Bogus 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’.

    Bogus document – the term as used in s.103 immediately above - is defined in s.5 of the Act, so as to mean 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.

12. The alleged breach of s.101(b) and s.103 particularised in the s.107 notice arose in the following manner:

    -On 27 June 2017 the applicant submitted his application for a Subclass 187 visa.  As part of that, he advised the department that he was a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, who had been born in [Location], Kosovo, on [date].  The applicant declared that information to be true and correct.

    -The applicant completed a personal particulars form (Form 80) specifying that he had been born on [Date] in [Location], Kosovo, and had Kosovo citizenship by birthright, yet had been subsequently granted Irish citizenship and an Irish passport on [in] 2012, on the basis of a Republic of Kosovo birth certificate issued [in] October 2009, and a Kosovo passport issued [in] 2009.  Scanned copies of the applicant’s Irish passport, Kosovo passport and Kosovo birth certificate were provided (‘the information’).

    -On the basis of the information provided, the applicant was granted a Subclass 187 visa, on 13 December 2017.

    -Information provided to the Department in relation to a third party caused the department to initiate check inquiries to ascertain the provenance of the information.  Checks conducted with the Albanian National Registry/Kosovan Agency for Civil Registration revealed no records of [a person of the applicant’s name], ostensibly born on [date] at [Location], Kosovo.  On this basis, the Department formed the view that the applicant had likely provided false information, supported by bogus documents as part of his Subclass 187 visa application.  Further, the department concluded that the applicant’s Irish passport was a document that had been procured by the applicant fraudulently: by his having provided false and misleading information and/or bogus documents to the Irish authorities.

13. On the hearing of this application for review before the Tribunal, the applicant relies upon all those materials previously submitted by him to the department in response to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (‘NOICC’) (the s.107 notice); as well as on other materials, including, in particular, a statutory declaration declared by the applicant on 5 March 2021.

14. Viewing this material in its totality reveals that the applicant provides the following account of the manner in which he came to acquire his Irish citizenship:

    -    The applicant was born in Kosovo in [year], at home, in a small mountain village, in exceedingly impoverished rural circumstances.  He cannot be certain that his (now deceased) parents ever registered his birth, and he strongly suspects that they did not as he cannot recall ever having any form of official Kosovo identification documents as a child and young adult, at least prior to his returning to Kosovo in 2009 in order to obtain identification documents.

    -    The applicant’s family was very limited.  There was only his parents and one uncle. 

    -    The applicant did not attend school, and learned to read and write at home, taught by his parents.

    -    From about 1997 onwards, things became very dangerous for ethnic Kosovo citizens because of Serbian control over Kosovo.  Many young people were rounded up by the Serbian police, never to be heard from again.  The applicant spent much of 1997 and 1998 hiding in the mountains lest he too became the victim of Serbian atrocities.

    -    Eventually, the applicant’s uncle (also now deceased) convinced his parents that arrangements should be made for at least the applicant, as a young man, to flee Kosovo, after it had been heard that the Republic of Ireland were receptive to the plight of Kosovo refugees.  The applicant’s uncle paid 5000 German marks to a smuggler for the applicant to be smuggled to Ireland, in the back of a truck. 

    -    The applicant left Kosovo on [Date 1] July 1998 and arrived in Ireland on [Date 2] July 1998 without any documents of any kind.

    -    Initially, the applicant lived in Ireland as a stateless person, before being granted humanitarian residency, in 2005.  Many thousands of people fled from Kosovo to Ireland in similar circumstances. 

    -    After Kosovo won independence on 17 February 2008, the Irish authorities requested the many Kosovar humanitarian refugees already in Ireland without identity documents to now travel to Kosovo to procure new proof of identification, within two years of that announcement.

    -    The applicant travelled to [Location] Kosovo [in] October 2009.  With the help of locals in [Location], he was directed as to where to go in order to obtain identification documents.  Once at the office to which he had been advised to attend, an officer requested that the applicant produce whatever information or documents he had in aid of his identity.  The applicant only had his Irish travel documents, and Irish identity documents.  The applicant says that he was then asked some very basic questions regarding his date and place of birth, and to nominate the names of other family members.  He did that and informed the registry officer that he had been born at home rather than in a hospital and that there was no trace of any surviving family members.  He was then issued with a birth certificate, that enabled him to apply for a Kosovo passport.

    -    The applicant submits that he had no basis to question the legitimacy of the birth certificate and passport that were issued to him in [Location], by the Kosovo authorities.  He notes that these documents were accepted as legitimate by the Republic of Ireland and formed the basis for his being issued with Irish citizenship and an Irish passport.  The applicant therefore assumes that the provenance of his Kosovo documents was first checked by the Republic of Ireland, prior to his being issued with Irish citizenship.  The applicant believes that his Irish citizenship documents are genuine, and believes that he was born on [date] at [Location] Kosovo, as stated.  This is what he had always been told by his parents.

15. The delegate concluded that the applicant had provided false information and or ‘bogus documents’ on the basis that inquiries instigated by the Department in Kosovo revealed no official registry records or information relating to [a person of the applicant’s name] born on [date] at [Location], Kosovo.  Those check inquiries also revealed no information confirming that [a person of the applicant’s name] had been issued with a birth certificate and passport in 2009.

16. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is in breach of s.101(b). There is, on the evidence, the distinct possibility that the applicant’s home birth was never officially registered in Kosovo. That no record of the applicant’s birth can now be found in records in [Location] Kosovo does not, in these circumstances demonstrate the falsity of the information given by the applicant in relation to his own birth.

17. As to the breach of s.103, it ought be expected that the fact of issue of a birth certificate to the applicant in [Location] Kosovo [in] 2009 - and subsequently a Kosovo passport [in] 2009 - would each be matters now able to be confirmed by official registry records still held in Kosovo. However, these things cannot now be confirmed in the official records in that country. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that the birth certificate and passport are not genuine documents, and these may have been issued in an irregular manner. That is not the same as now finding that the Applicant intentionally obtained and provided false documents, or that these documents were not issued by authorised officers in Kosovo. Ultimately however, and because of the way in which ‘bogus documents’ are defined in s.5 of the Act, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.103 by the applicant in the manner now described in the s.107 notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

18. As the Tribunal has decided that there was at least partial non-compliance, with s.103 of the Act in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is entirely discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).

19. In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and it must 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, these 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.

    The correct information

20. The correct information is that checks conducted by the Department found that no record exists in the Albanian National Registry/Kosovan Agency for Civil Registration of [a person of the applicant’s name], date of birth [date], place of birth [Location], Kosovo.  Ultimately however the Tribunal is not satisfied that the absence of a birth record for the applicant in Kosovo has the consequence that the applicant gave incorrect information regarding his date and place of birth, particularly in circumstances of a home birth, and some doubt as to whether that fact was ever notified to the authorities for purposes of registration.  I attach no weight in favour of visa cancellation to the allegedly false birth information given by the applicant in support of his visa application in these circumstances.

21. Further, the correct information is that there is no official record in Kosovo of [a person of the applicant’s name], - then travelling on Irish humanitarian documents - having been issued with a Kosovo birth certificate [in] 2009, or a Kosovo passport [in] 2009.  In his statutory declaration sworn on 5 March 2021 the applicant says that he had no reason to suspect that the Kosovo identity documents issued to him in 2009 were not genuine, although he does concede that the identity office officials with whom he dealt with in Kosovo did seem enthusiastic and generous in their efforts to process identity document applications for Kosovo citizens coming from Ireland.    

    The content of the genuine document (if any)

22. In the absence of any record in Kosovo of the fact of issue in 2009 of both a birth certificate and passport to the applicant, real doubts do now arise regarding the provenance of both documents.  The Tribunal attaches some weight in favour of visa cancellation to that circumstance.

    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

23. The decision to grant the applicant a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa was partly based on the documentary evidence from Kosovo regarding his identity.  In view of this information, The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in favour of visa cancellation.

    The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

24. The only evidence before the Tribunal regarding the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred is that as provided by the applicant himself.  The applicant explained that he arrived in Ireland in 1998 as a refugee without any proof of his identity, having been born in impoverished circumstances in which it seems probable that his birth had not been registered by his parents.  Subsequently, the applicant returned to Kosovo in 2009, at which time his only proof of identity was that obtained from his interim Irish humanitarian documents.  These were then used as the basis for the applicant to be issued with Kosovo identity documents and, subsequently, Irish citizenship documents. 

25. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to afford the basis for a finding that the applicant was privy to any scheme to knowingly create false Kosovo identity documents, or that the applicant was aware that he had been issued with what may have been bogus documents.   Accordingly, the Tribunal does not make any finding of that kind.  The Tribunal now attaches neutral weight to these circumstances when considering the matter of visa cancellation.

    The present circumstances of the visa holder

26. Upon arriving in Ireland the applicant found employment in [an] industry and worked extraordinarily hard to learn English and to acquire skills and experience in that industry, eventually rising to become a qualified [Occupation 1]. 

27. The applicant first came to Australia on holidays in 2012, before subsequently arriving on a 457 visa in February 2014.  Throughout his time in Australia the applicant has continued to work in the [specified] industry as [an Occupation 1].  He is now a leading hand [Occupation 1] and is responsible for the day-to-day oversight of a number of critical [projects]. 

28. There are a number of glowing employment and character references in evidence before the Tribunal that speak very highly of the applicant’s skills and abilities as [an Occupation 1], and work ethic, and loyalty, as an employee.  For example, in a reference letter dated 28 May 2020 [Mr B], [manager] for [Employer 1] specifies that the applicant has been employed continuously by [Employer 1] since 2015 as a team leader, supervising progressive [upgrades].  [Mr B] describes this [work] as both ‘complex’ and ‘dangerous’, and says that the applicant is a critical employee of [Employer 1], in circumstances where “people to satisfy the training requirements, skill set and experience of [the applicant] are just not available.  The time and cost to attempt to replace him would be 3 – 5 years and in the tens of thousands of dollars.  Even then, the experience lost would lead to the major weakening of an industry that has an ageing population [in the context of] an asset that requires now more than ever highly experienced people”.

1. The applicant has no criminal convictions whatsoever, in either Ireland, or in Australia.  The applicant and his partner are home-owners at [Suburb 1], South Australia and are, in all respects, settled citizens each making a worthy contribution to Australian society and the economy.

2. In the exercise of its discretion the Tribunal now attaches a very strong measure of weight in favour of non-cancellation of the visa to these particular considerations.

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

3. The applicant responded to the s.107 within the prescribed timeframe and behaved in accordance with his obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal therefore gives this consideration some weight against cancelling the visa.

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

4. Prior to obtaining his current visa the applicant gave the same information to the Department regarding his identity in the case of his eVisitor (subclass 651) visa in September 2012 and his Temporary Work (Subclass 457) visa in November 2013.  Given the known circumstances of the incorrect and misleading information the Tribunal now attaches only limited weight to these instances of non-compliance.

   The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

5. The applicant provided the incorrect information and answers in his application for Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa in June 2017. Approximately four years have elapsed since the non-compliance occurred. On 13 December 2017, the applicant was granted his visa on the basis of the answers and information he provided.

6. While the regulation 2.41 factors - as discussed immediately above - must be considered, these do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered as 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 that as now 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.

7. In relation to other relevant matters, the Tribunal notes the following:

   Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140.

8. In the event that the visa were to be cancelled, the applicant’s partner (who is a [Country 1] citizen) would also have her own visa cancelled, under s.140.  The Tribunal attaches important weight against visa cancellation to that circumstance.

   The best interests of any children affected by visa cancellation

9. There are no minor children who might be adversely impacted by the proposed visa cancellation.

   Whether the cancellation would lead to the person's removal in breach of Australia's non-refoulement or family unity obligations

10. There is no evidence before the Tribunal suggesting that a decision to cancel the applicant’s visa would be in breach of any of the international agreements to which Australia is a signatory.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether the person would become unlawful and liable to detention and removal, whether detention is a likely consequence of the cancellation decision and if so, for how long, and whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid application for any visa without the Minister personally intervening

11. If the visa is cancelled, the applicant would become an unlawful non-citizen and be liable for detention under section 189 and removal from Australia under section 198 of the Migration Act if he does not voluntarily depart or apply for a further visa.

12. The applicant will be able to make limited further visa application permissible under section 48 of the Migration Act. Cancellation in these circumstances means that Public Interest Criteria 4013 will apply to the visa holder and that he may not meet the requirement for grant of certain visa subclasses for a three year period.

13. In view of the above, the Tribunal gives this consideration weight against cancelling the visa.

    Any other relevant matters (including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members)

14. In the event that the applicant and his partner were required to leave Australia this would create significant disruption for the applicant’s employer and adverse impact on projects aimed at the renewal of critical community infrastructure in South Australia - in the form of [specified infrastructure]. 

15. The applicant and his partner have made a number of social, economic and cultural connections in Adelaide.  These considerations, and the interests of Australian citizens and permanent residents whom now benefit from the presence in Australia of the applicant and his partner are further factors that lend weight against visa cancellation 

    DECISION

16. The Tribunal has decided that there was partial non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. However, now having regard to all the prescribed matters and other relevant circumstances the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.

17. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 187 -  Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa.

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

    Andrew McLean Williams
    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.