2214065 (Migration)

[2023] AATA 1692

2214065 (Migration) [2023] AATA 1692 (2 May 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:Mr Shamsher Kainth (MARN: 2117656)

CASE NUMBER:  2214065

MEMBER:Noelle Hossen

DATE:2 May 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 187 - Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa.

Statement made on 02 May 2023 at 3:00pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa – Subclass 187 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme – bogus document – incorrect information in the visa application – identity details – previous visa granted and cancelled under another identity – applicant previously deported from Australia – period of unlawful residence – decision under review affirmed     

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 97 – 105, 107-109, 137J, 140, 189, 198
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 187.213; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4013; r 2.41

CASES

MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
Wan v MIMA (2001) 107 FCR 133

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 applicant’s Subclass 187 - Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with Sections 101(b) 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. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on the 15 March 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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?

8. 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 Section 101(b) and Section 103 of the Act in the following respects:

   Alleged non-compliance with Section 101(b)

9. Section 101 provides that visa applications are to be correct, and paragraph (b) specifically requires that no incorrect answers are given or provided.

10. On 2 of June 2014 the applicant lodged an application for a Student (Higher Education Sector) visa. At question 6 on page 7 of the visa application form under the heading student details, the form asked:” Have you been known by any other names? Including, name at birth previous married names aliases.” The applicant answered:” No.” The Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because information before the department indicated that the applicant was also known as [Alias A] (DOB [DOB 1]).

11. At question 8 on page 7 of the Student (Higher Education Sector) visa application form under the heading,” Student Details “the form asked” Date of Birth”. The applicant answered [DOB 2]. The Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because information before the Tribunal indicated the applicant has also used the date of birth of [DOB 1].

12. At Question 9 on page 8 of the Student (Higher Education Sector) visa application form under the heading “student details” the form asked:” Have you ever used a different date of birth?” The applicant answered “No”. Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because as [Alias A] the applicant used the DOB [DOB 1] when he applied and was granted a student vocational education and training sector visa on 20 March 2009.

13. At question 80 on page 18 of the Student (Higher Education Sector) visa application form under the heading previous Visa applications the form asked:” Have you or any other person included in this application previously applied for any type of Australian visa?” The applicant answered “No”. The Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because information before the Tribunal indicates the applicant applied for and was granted a Student Vocational Education and Training Sector visa on 20 March 2009 under the identity of [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1].

14. At question 81 on page 18 of the Student (Higher Education Sector) visa application form under the heading, previous Visa applications the form asked:” Have you or any other person included in this application ever been in Australia and not comply with these conditions or departed Australia outside your authorised period of stay? Or had an application for entry to Australia refused, or had a Visa for Australia cancelled?” The applicant answered:” No.” The Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because information before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant as [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1] had his Student (Vocational Education Training Sector) visa automatically cancelled under Section 137J of the Act on 14 October 2010.

15. At question 92 on page 20 of the Student (Higher Education Sector) visa application form under the heading” Character” the form asked:” Have you or any member of your family unit including, in this application ever been removed or deported from any country including Australia?” The applicant answered:” No”. The Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because information before the Tribunal indicated that the applicant as [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1] was removed from Australia [in] March 2013.

16. On 16 March 2018 the applicant lodged an application for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa. On page 2 of the Visa application form under the heading of” Other names – spellings” in response to the question:” Is this applicant currently or have they ever been known by any other names?” The applicant answered” No.” Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because information before the Tribunal indicated that the applicant is also known as [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1].

17. On page 2 of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa application form in response to the question:” Does this applicant have any other current passports?” The applicant answered:” no.” The Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because information before the Tribunal indicated that as [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1] the applicant held Indian passport document number [A] which was valid until [2017].

18. On page 9 of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa application form in response to the question:” Has any applicant ever been removed, deported or excluded from any country including Australia?” The applicant answered:” No.” The Tribunal considers that this answer to be incorrect because as [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1] the applicant was removed from Australia as an unlawful noncitizen [in] March 2013. Further the applicant was subject to a risk factor under PIC4013 and under PIC4014 of the Act, which prevented the grant of temporary visas to the applicant for a period of three years from the date of the cancellation of his Student Vocational Education and Training Sector visa on 14 October 2010 and for a period of three years from the date of his removal from Australia [in] March 2013.

19. On page 9 of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa application form in response to the question” Has any applicant overstayed a Visa in any country including Australia?” the applicant answered “No.”  The Tribunal considers this answer to be incorrect because as  [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1] the applicant overstayed in Australia beyond the validity of his visa by a period of two years and four months, following the automatic cancellation of the Student Vocational Education and Training Sector visa on 14 October 2010 before being removed from Australia [in] March 2013.

    Non-Compliance with Section 103

20. On 2 June 2014 the applicant lodged an application for a Student (Higher Education Sector) Visa. The applicant provided Indian passport document number [B]. This passport recorded the applicant’s identity as [the applicant’s name] DOB [DOB 2] and that he had never held a previous Indian passport. The department identified through biometric examinations that the applicant was also known as and [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1]. Relevantly departmental records confirmed that as [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1], the applicant travelled to Australia in 2009 as the holder of Indian passport document number [A].

21. On 16 March 2018 the applicant lodged an application for a Regional Sponsored Migrations Scheme Visa and provided an Indian passport document number [B]. This passport recorded the applicant’s identity as [the applicant’s name] DOB [DOB 2] and that he had never held a previous Indian passport. The Department identified through biometric examinations that the applicant is also known as [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1]. Relevantly departmental records confirmed that as [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1] the applicant travelled to Australia in 2009 as the holder of Indian passport document number [A].

22. The Department found that as the Indian passport document number [B] was provided in association with the applicant’s student Higher Education Sector Visa and Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa applications it appeared that he has not complied with section 103 of the Act.

23. Based on the above information the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant did not comply with section 101(b) and section 103 of the Act in relation to his previous student Higher Education Sector Visa and Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa. By virtue of section 107A of the act that applicant’s current Visa may be cancelled under section 109 of the Act.

24. The applicant admitted to the Department that he did not comply and confirmed his position at the hearing before the Tribunal. Although he mentioned that he was depressed after his father passed away and that he was approached by an agent who instigated the preparation of the false identity, the Tribunal finds that he was complicit and responsible for the provision of incorrect information and the provision of bogus documents to the Department.

25. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with Section 101(b) and Section 103 of the Act by the applicant in the way described in the s 107 notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

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

27. In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s 107 notice about the non-compliance and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s 109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in reg 2.41 of the Regulations. Briefly, they are:

    ·     the correct information

28. The correct information is that the applicant travelled to Australia under the identity of [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1]. His previous student Visa was automatically cancelled on 14 October 2010 under section 137J of the act.

29. He remained in Australia unlawfully and was removed from Australia [in] March 2013.

30. He was subject to the risk factor under PIC 4013 upon cancellation of the student Visa. He was also subject to a risk factor under PIC4014 upon his departure from Australia on 7th of March 2013.

31. During the hearing the applicant admitted that he obtained a false identity to return to Australia in 2014 after a local travel agent approached him with an opportunity to return to Australia. The applicant stated that he wanted to return to Australia to make the most of the opportunity and to help to replay his family’s debt.

32. The Tribunal places a lot of weight on these facts in favour of cancelling the Visa

    ·     the content of the genuine document (if any)

33. The applicant used an Indian passport document number [B] purporting to record his identity as [the applicant’s name] DOB [DOB 2].

34. It has been established that the applicant had previously travelled to Australia under the identity of [Alias A] DOB [DOB 1]. He admitted the Indian passport [B] was a bogus document because it was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether made not knowingly, as defined by section 5(1)C of the act.

35. The Tribunal considers that this bogus document was provided in support of the application for the applicant’s Student (Higher Education Sector) Visa and Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa applications as he has not complied with his obligations under section 103 of the Act.

36. The Tribunal places significant weight in favour of cancelling the Visa in respect of this consideration.

    ·     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

37. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s Student Higher Education Visa was granted based on the incorrect information. The applicant knew that he was the subject of risk factor PIC 4013 and 4014 and so he provided false and misleading information in a bogus document and purported to record his claimed identity as [the applicant’s name] DOB [DOB 2].

38. Although the applicant was granted his Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa based on other primary criteria outside of the non-declaration of his alternative identity the Tribunal considers that the delegate of the Department was prevented from assessing the correct information as required by subclause 187.213 of the Regulations.

39. The decision to grant the applicant’s Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa was based at least partly on incorrect information provided on his Visa application. He obtained a significant advantage namely 2 Visas, one of which provided him with permanent residency by providing incorrect information in a bogus document to the Department to be granted a Visa that he may not have been entitled to.

40. The Tribunal places considerable weight in favour of cancelling the Visa on this consideration.

    ·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

41. In his response to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation the applicant stated through his migration agent, that the applicant had been young and impressionable and when approached by local travel agent had decided to return to Australia to help repay his family’s debt, his father incurred by supporting the applicant. The applicant submitted that when he learnt that he would have to assume a new identity as part of the arrangement, he had already paid the agent’s fees and would have been placed into further debt if he did not continue with the agent’s offer.

42. The applicant failed to declare the correct answers regarding his identity and at his immigration history in Australia whilst the holder of a Student Higher Education Sector Visa application which was lodged on 2 June 2014.

43. The Tribunal is of the view that there are no extenuating circumstances that were beyond his control which led to the non-compliance and therefore gives this consideration some weight in favour of cancelling the Visa.

    ·     the present circumstances of the visa holder

44. At the time of the hearing the applicant stated that he was no longer in a relationship with an Australian citizen, in Australia. He was living with a family who had supported him throughout his stay in Australia. He was working as [an occupation 1] and he had some concerns that he would not be able to use his skills if he returned to India as there would be a lack of [relevant] training facilities. He indicated that he had completed [two relevant courses]. He said that when he returned to India he would not be living in a rural area and would not have access to [relevant training resources].

45. He indicated to the Tribunal that he was employed presently in Australia.

46. There is no doubt the applicant will face some hardship if he is to return to live in his home country after having spent the last 7 years in Australia acquiring skills.

47. The Tribunal places some weight on those factors in favour of not cancelling the Visa

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

48. The delegate of the Department in the decision considered the fact that the applicant did not concede that he had provided incorrect information to the Department until the Notice to Consider Cancellation was issued. The applicant submitted that he realises the seriousness of the non-compliance after arriving in Australia.

49. There is no evidence of any further non-compliance with his dealings with the Department since he arrived in Australia save for what has already been referred to. The applicant did respond to the Notice of intention to Consider Cancellation within the period required. The Tribunal places a little weight on these facts in favour of not cancelling

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

50. The Delegate of the Department noted that [in] August 2022 the applicant lodged an application for Australian Citizenship by conferral which remained under assessment at the time of the Delegate’s decision. The applicant maintained in that application that he is not known by any other name other than [the applicant’s name] DOB [DOB 2] and had never been removed from a country.

51. Given the fact that the applicant’s admissions that he assumed a false identity to return to Australia in 2014 following his removal in 2013, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has made a deliberate attempt to obtain Australian citizenship based on false information.

52. The Tribunal places significant weight on those facts in favour of cancelling the Visa.

    ·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

53. The non-compliance occurred on 2 June 2014 when the applicant lodged an application for a Student (Higher Education Sector) Visa. Non-compliance occurred on 16^th of March 2018 when the applicant lodged a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme Visa application stating that he was not known by any other name. The applicant has resided in Australia since the 9 July 2014. The applicant has no doubt developed some ties in Australia in his time.

54. At the time of the Decision of the Delegate the applicant was in a relationship with an Australian citizen, but at the time of the Tribunal hearing the applicant confirmed that his relationship did not last, and he was now single. He said that he lived with a family who supported him. He said that he did own a property in Australia, but he has now sold the property as he could no longer afford it.

1. He did not provide any submissions prior to the hearing.

2. The applicant no doubt has ties to Australia and the Tribunal places some weight in favour of not cancelling Visa on those facts.

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

3. There is no information before the Tribunal that indicates the applicant has breached any law since this non-compliance occurred in 2014.

4. The Tribunal places a little weight against cancelling the Visa on these

   ·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.

5. There was very little evidence of his contributions to the community as the applicant did not provide any submissions prior to the hearing so the Tribunal cannot make a finding in respect of this consideration.

   Other factors to be considered

6. While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

   whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140.

7. There is no evidence that there would be consequential cancellations, so this factor is not relevant to the determination by the Tribunal.

   if there are children whose interests would be affected by cancellation, or consequential cancellation, decision-makers should consider the best interests of those children as a primary consideration when deciding whether to cancel the visa. (NOTE: It has been said that the question is what decision is in the best interests of the child, not what the children might do if their parent were required to cease living in Australia: Wan v MIMA (2001) 107 FCR 133, at [27]-[28].)

8. There is no evidence that there would be any children that would be affected by cancellation of the Visa.

9. The Tribunal does not place any weight on this consideration either in favour of or against decision to cancel the Visa as it is not relevant in this case.

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

10. The policy guidelines require that all delegates should assess whether Australia would be in breach of its international obligations if the Visa was cancelled. This includes the obligations in relation to non-refoulement obligations pursuant to the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees, the Refugee Convention, the International covenant on civil and political rights, the Convention against Torture and other cruel inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment and the Convention on the rights of the child.

11. The applicant is a citizen of India and he has not applied for protection or raised any claims he fears returning to his own country or that his civil and political rights will be affected. The Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation would not lead to the applicant being removed in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the Refugee Convention or in breach of Australia’s obligation under the CAT or the ICCPR in this case.

12. There is no evidence available to the Tribunal to indicate that the Visa cancellation result in breach of any part of Australia’s international obligations.

13. The Tribunal places some weight on those facts in favour of cancelling the Visa.

    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.

14. If the Visa was to be cancelled the Visa holder would become an unlawful noncitizen and could be liable for detention under section 189 and removal under section 198 of the act if it does not voluntarily depart Australia. The applicant  may be affected by PIC 4013 limiting the grant for of a further temporary Visa for a specified period.

15. The Tribunal places a little weight on this consideration against cancelling the Visa.

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

17. The Tribunal does not have any evidence before it that the applicant has any family members living in Australia. He indicated that his mother still lives in India and is looked after by his relatives. He indicated that he does not have a lot of contact with his relatives. He said that his brother lives in [another country].

18. He stated that he works as [an occupation 1] and that it would be difficult for him to continue in his occupation presently in India as he would have to live in the countryside. He provided no further evidence, so the Tribunal is unable to assess whether there will be a significant degree of hardship if the Visa is cancelled.

19. The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

20. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 187 - Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa.

    Noelle Hossen
    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.