Andal (Migration)

[2021] AATA 3601

Andal (Migration) [2021] AATA 3601 (23 September 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Arnold De Mesa Andal

CASE NUMBER:  2105542

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/561289

MEMBER:James Silva

DATE:23 September 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa.

Statement made on 23 September 2021 at 4:27pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Bridging A (Class WA) visa – Subclass 010 (Bridging A) – issued in association with further student visa application – false or misleading information provided in visa application – other name known by not declared – Philippine name format, with mother’s and father’s surnames – formats of questions about names in applications – previous visa refusal not declared – agent who completed form skipped that portion of application – refusal declared in first visitor visa application – limited significance of incorrect information – no deliberate deception but lack of care – discretion to cancel visa – student visa application refused and application for review in progress – study and work history – possibility of applying for Bridging Visa E – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 100, 101(b), 107, 109(1)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41(c), Schedule 4, criterion 4020

CASE

MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

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 010 (Bridging A) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant is a national of the Philippines, born in October 1983. He was granted a Bridging A visa on 11 June 2020, in association with a student visa application lodged on the same day. On 5 March 2021, the delegate issued a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of the Bridging A visa because the delegate formed the view that there are grounds for cancelling the applicant’s visa under s.109 of the Act, on the basis that the applicant had provided incorrect information in breach of s.101(b). The applicant responded to the NOICC on 15 March 2021, and his visa was cancelled on 23 April 2021. The applicant seeks review of the decision.

3. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 September 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted via video-conference, in English, which the applicant speaks fluently The applicant is represented in this matter by his migration agent Mr Vladimir Alarique Cabigao of Bridge Blue Global Migration Pty Ltd.

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

   Background: Bridging visa cancellation and refusal of student visa application

6. The applicant held a subclass 500 Student (Temporary) visa from 2 November 2018 until 18 June 2020.

7. On 11 June 2020, he applied for a further subclass 500 Student visa. A Department officer refused the application on 25 March 2021, on the basis that the applicant did not meet Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020, as the 2018 student visa application contained ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’. The information related to whether he had ever had an application for entry into Australia refused, and whether he had ever been known by any other names. On 14 April 2021, the applicant lodged an application for review of the decision to refuse to grant the student visa.

8. On 11 June 2020, the applicant was granted a Bridging A visa in association with his application for the student visa. The cancellation of that bridging visa on 23 April 2021 – which is the subject of this review – was based on the same information that was addressed in the student refusal decision of 25 March 2021.

9. The applicant is currently an unlawful non-citizen, and liable to detention and removal from Australia. At hearing, the Tribunal explored whether he or his representative had sought to regularise his status, e.g. by applying for a Bridging E visa. They did not respond substantively to the Tribunal’s enquiry.

10. The applicant sought to have his applications for review of the bridging visa cancellation decision and the student visa refusal decision combined, or at least conducted concurrently, noting that both decisions relate to the same information that he provided in the 2018 student visa application. The Tribunal is of the view that the bridging visa cancellation is a priority, given the applicant’s current status as an unlawful non-citizen. While both the bridging visa cancellation decision and the student visa refusal decision arise from the same facts (the information provided in the 2018 application), they involve different criteria, considerations and consequences. The Tribunal notes that the submissions in this matter have addressed both decisions, sometimes mixing the relevant evidence and criteria.        

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. 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 of and cany relevant changes in circumstances. In the present case, the issue concerns the applicant’s compliance with s.101(b), which states: ‘a non-citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that no incorrect answers are given or provided.’

12. 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.

    Did the notice comply with the requirements in s.107?

13. The Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation under s.109 (NOICC, ‘the notice’) issued by the Minister’s delegate addressed the applicant’s compliance with s.101(b). For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal is satisfied that the notice complied with s.107.

14. The notice gave the particulars of the possible non-compliance, by setting out relevant information that the applicant provided in a sponsored family visitor visa application lodged on 13 March 2012, and refused on 10 April 2021; and in a student visa application lodged on 19 September 2018. The information related to: (a) his correct given and family names; (b) whether he had ever been known by any other name; (c) whether he had ever had a visa application refused by the Department: and (d) on the September 2018 application, whether he had provided complete and correct information in every detail on the form. (See below for details.)

15. In relation to each particular, the notice stated: ‘I consider it appears you have not complied with s.101(b) of the Act [with details of the information provided in 2018]’, and then: ‘I consider this to be incorrect… [with details of the information provided in 2012, which they took to be correct].’ The delegate’s decision record contained the same wording.

16. Neither the applicant nor his representative raised any concerns about the NOICC. 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?

17. 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.

18. The s.107 notice identified non-compliance with s.101(b) in respect of the following relevant information:

    §  In a sponsored family visitor visa application lodged on 13 March 2012 (March 2012 application), and refused on 10 April 2012:

    -   Family name: Andal; Middle name: De Mesa; Given name: Arnold.

    §  In a student visa application lodged on 19 September 2018 (September 2018 application):

    -   Family name: De Mesa Andal; Given name: Arnold (page two of the form);

    -   He had never been known by any other name (page three of the form);

    -   He had never had a visa application refused by the Department; and

    -   Under the warning ‘Declarations: Warning: Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence’, the applicant declared ‘yes’ to a series of questions that the delegate took to ‘indicate that [he] had provided complete and correct information in every detail on the form’.

19. The NOICC particularised the non-compliance with s.101(b), in relation to the student visa application form lodged on 19 September 2018, in the following terms:

    ‘I consider it appears you have not complied […] on page two of the visa application under the section entitled ‘Passport details’ where you stated your family name to be ‘DE MESA ANDAL. I consider this to be incorrect as your family name is ANDAL and your given names are Arnold de Mesa’.

    ‘I consider it appears you have not complied […] on page three of [the form] under the section entitled ‘Other Names/Spellings’ where you answered ‘no’ to indicate you have never been known by any other names. I consider this to be incorrect as you have also been known as Arnold de Mesa (given names) ANDAL (surname).’

    ‘I consider it appears you have not complied […] on page 12 of [the form] under the section entitled ‘Visa History’ wherein you stated ‘no’ to indicate you have never had an application for entry or further stay in Australia or any other country refused. I consider this to be incorrect as you had a SFV application, lodged under the name Arnold de Mesa (given names) ANDAL (surname) refused by this Department on 10 April 2012.’

    ‘I consider it appears you have not complied […] on page 16 of [the form] under the section entitled ‘Declarations: Warning: Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence,’ wherein you answered ‘yes’ to indicate you had provided complete and correct information in every detail on the form. I consider this to be incorrect as you failed to indicate you have also been known as Arnold de Mesa (given names) ANDAL (surname), and had a visa application refused by the Department in 2012’.

20. The applicant’s response to the NOICC, dated 15 March 2021, only addressed the question of the names. It explained that Philippine law and practice permits a person to have the surnames of both the father and the mother, noting that the mother’s surname appears in his passport as a middle name. It did not address the third point, namely the applicant’s failure to declare his previous visa application refusal in 2012.

21. Correct family name: In the decision under review, the delegate noted that page two of the student visa application form (September 2018) required the applicant to provide only a given name and a family name. There was no adequate opportunity for him to reflect his full name as it appears in his passport, which records his mother’s surname as a middle name. The delegate concluded that there was no non-compliance on page two as described in the NOICC. The Tribunal likewise finds that there was no non-compliance on page two as described in the NOICC.

22. Other names/spellings: The NOICC identified incorrect information on page three of the September 2018 application form, in which the applicant, under the heading ‘Other Names/Spellings’, stated that he had never been known by any other names. The notice contrasts the information on the September 2018 application form – Arnold (given name) DE MESA ANDAL (family name) – with the information given in the March 2012 application form – Arnold de Mesa (given names) ANDAL (family name).

23. In written submissions to the Department and the Tribunal, the applicant’s representative provided background information on naming conventions in the Philippines, which provides some context for considering whether the information was incorrect. He also addressed other issues, such as the applicant’s reliance on an education provider to complete the September 2018 application form.

24. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant appears to have given two different family names, ‘De Mesa Andal’ and ‘Andal’; and that, in the context of his failure to declare a previous visa application refusal, this may raise concerns that he has attempted to deceive the Department. However, in the Tribunal’s view, he actually provided the same names and spellings. As noted above, the student visa application form (September 2018) provided no adequate means for him to record his maternal family name. The Tribunal is not satisfied that his presentation of this as part of an extended family name on page three of the September 2018 application form is ‘incorrect information’ as particularised in the NOICC. It finds that there is no non-compliance in relation to this point.

25. Previous visa refusal: The applicant’s response to the NOICC did not address his failure to declare on the September 2018 application form that he had had a previous visa application refused, in March 2012. The written submission to the Tribunal states that the education provider who completed the form on the applicant’s behalf ‘skipped the portion about prior visa refusal of a visa application’; the omission was ‘with [the applicant’s] knowledge or consent’. However, s.100 of the Act makes it clear that for the purposes of Subdivision C, an answer to a question is incorrect even if the person who gave it or caused it to be given did not know that it was incorrect. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s statement on page 12 of the September 2018 application was incorrect information.

26. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice, in respect of his failure to declare the previous application refusal.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

27. 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).

    Consideration of prescribed circumstances

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

    The correct information

29. The correct information is that the applicant applied for a sponsored family visitor visa on 13 March 2012, and the application was refused on 10 April 2012. The applicant has agreed that the information was incorrect.

30. He also claimed that the education agent, Information Planet Australia (IPA) made the error, ‘without his knowledge or consent’. Section 100 makes it clear that for the purposes of Subdivision C, an answer to a question is incorrect even if the person who gave it or caused it to be given did not know that it was incorrect. IPA’s role is therefore irrelevant in determining whether the information was correct or incorrect.   

31. The Tribunal places some weight on this in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa.

    The content of the genuine document (if any)

32. As there is no genuine document in this case, this factor is not relevant.

    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

33. The Tribunal is satisfied that the grant of the student visa on 2 November 2018 was based partly on the incorrect information that the applicant had never had a previous visa refused. The correct information – that the applicant had been refused a sponsored family visitor visa in April 2012 – was relevant to the officer’s assessment of whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. A person’s immigration history is one factor to consider when assessing whether they intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. The incorrect information denied the officer the opportunity to consider his factor.

34. The Tribunal notes that the delegate also considered it probable that ‘the delegate assessing the visa application may have reached a different outcome, as he [the applicant] would not have satisfied PIC 4020’. Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4020 requires that there is ‘no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given […] information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa’, and is a basis for visa refusal. The Tribunal notes that reg.2.41(c) relates to the circumstances that led to the actual grant of a visa (or immigration clearance). In its view, PIC 4020 applies only if there is evidence of incorrect information before the Minister, and if the information is false or misleading in a material particular. This differs from the requirement in reg.2.41(c). In the present case, the Tribunal does not consider PIC 4020 to be a relevant consideration.

35. The Tribunal places some weight on this in favour of cancellation.  

    The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

36. The delegate, in the decision under review, considered it ‘likely [the applicant] provided incorrect information in relation his name and prior visa history for the purposes of omitting adverse information from his 2012 SFV visa application’. Relevantly, it was the combined effect of the name and prior visa history, as stated in the 2018 student visa application, that led the delegate to consider the non-compliance to be deceptive. While the Tribunal understands the delegate’s concern, for the reasons stated above, it is not satisfied that there was non-compliance in relation to the applicant’s name.

37. The applicant and his representative made submissions to the Department and the Tribunal, essentially claiming that the applicant had acted in good faith throughout, and had not deliberately misled the Department.

    §  As noted above, the applicant said he relied on the services of IPA, an education agent, who completed the student visa application on his behalf. The submissions of 15 March 2021 (to the Department) and 26 April 2021 (to the Tribunal) state that the applicant ‘is not sophisticated enough to understand the language and technicality of a complex document such as a visa application of Australia’.

    §  The applicant claimed that IPA ‘skipped the portion about prior refusal of a visa application’, on the presumption that the applicant had not previously been refused a visa. He stated that they gave the incorrect information ‘without [his] knowledge or consent’.

    §  In the decision under review, however, the delegate found that the applicant had submitted the 2018 student visa application himself, as a self-registered user, noting that there was no evidence of IPA acting in relation to the September 2018 application. The applicant submitted to the Tribunal a partial copy of a contract with IPA (signed student declaration), dated 10[1] September 2018, to show that he had engaged IPA to assist with his education course.

    §  The applicant also provided documents relating to the grant of a subclass 600 (Visitor) visa on 11 June 2018, on which he first entered Australia. These include a photocopy of the completed visitor visa application form (Form 1419) lodged in May 2018, where at question 42, he declared that he had had an application for entry to Australia refused with the words: ‘Tourist visa application year 2014’. The submission of 26 April 2021 describes the applicant’s reference to 2014, rather than 2012, as a genuine mistake and ‘a mere matter of form’. It contends that the applicant’s mention of the visa refusal in his May 2018 visitor visa application demonstrates that ‘there was no malicious intention to conceal [from the Department] the prior visa refusal’. It invites the Tribunal to take this into account when considering the circumstances that led to the bridging visa cancellation.    

    [1] The date appears as ‘10’ September, but appears to be a correction of an earlier date, possibly ‘09’ September 2018.

1. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the available evidence, that the non-compliance was the result of any deliberate deception on the applicant’s part, although it does suggest a lack of care and perhaps seriousness.

2. The Tribunal places a little weight on this factor in favour of cancelling the visa.

   The present circumstances of the visa holder

3. The applicant has been an unlawful non-citizen since the cancellation of his Bridging A visa on 23 April 2021.

4. The applicant’s PRISMS[2] records show that he had completed a Certificate III in Individual Support course (October 2018 to July 2019); a Certificate IV in Ageing Support course (July 2019 to April 202); and that he was enrolled in a Diploma of Community Services course from 20 April 2020 through to 17 April 2022. However, as discussed at hearing, his enrolment in the diploma course was cancelled on 17 August 2021 due to ‘unsatisfactory course progress’. The applicant said that he stopped attending the course after his Bridging A visa was cancelled, and did not inform his education provider. His representative commented that the applicant was probably not aware of the need to do so.

   [2] Provider Registration and International Student Management Systems

5. The applicant claims to have worked casually nursing assistant at Opal Quakers Hillside, from August 2020 until April 2021. He presented a statement of service from the payroll officer, dated 28 April 2021, confirming his ongoing employment as of that date.

6. The applicant claims that he now spends time at home. He gave no further insights as to how he spends his time. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant was unforthcoming about his activities, perhaps attributable to his current status as an unlawful non-citizen.

7. The applicant claims that he wants to resume his studies in Australia, to learn more about aged care. He described education in Australia as more affordable and popular. Looking further ahead, he said that he would like to return to the Philippines, and perhaps join his mother who lives in London.

8. While the applicant submitted evidence of having been productive up to April 2021, and intending to re-engage in his studies and related work in the future, his guarded evidence about his current circumstances undermined this somewhat. Nonetheless, the Tribunal accepts that he has completed several vocational courses; that he has applied these skills in the aged care sector; and that the visa cancellation could (subject to the outcome of the review of his student visa refusal decision) cause some hardship by preventing his resumption of these activities.

9. The Tribunal places a little weight on this factor against 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

10. There is no material relating to the applicant’s compliance with his obligations under Subdivision C, since the NOICC.

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

11. There are no other known instances of the applicant’s non-compliance with ss.101-105.

    The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

12. The non-compliance occurred in September 2018, i.e. three years ago. The Tribunal accepts that he has engaged in studies and work since then, and established some community ties. It places a little weight on this factor against cancelling the visa.

    Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

13. There are no known instances of the applicant breaching the law. As visa applicants and holders are expected to comply with the law, the Tribunal places minimal weight on this against cancelling the visa.

    Any contribution made by the holder to the community

14. The applicant worked up till April 2021 casually, as a nursing assistant in an aged care home in Quakers Hill, as evidenced by the statement of service dated 28 April 2021. This is in line with his studies and vocational training. The Tribunal acknowledges this as a contribution to the community, in the priority aged care sector.

15. The Tribunal gives this modest weight against cancelling the visa.

    Other relevant circumstances

16. While the factors set in r.2.41 out 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.

17. There are no persons who would be affected by consequential cancellation.

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

18. The visa cancellation would not result in the applicant’s removal from Australia, as he has an ongoing application for review before the AAT of a student visa refusal decision. Furthermore, he has not claimed, and there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that Australia has protection obligations in respect of him, or that there are any family-related factors that would prevent his removal.

    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.

19. At face value, the visa cancellation would result in the applicant’s continued status as an unlawful non-citizen who is liable to be detained under s.189 and removed under s.198; and who is not permitted to study or work. However, this is not a mandatory legal consequence, as the applicant has, and would continue to have, the option to apply for a Bridging E visa, for instance on the basis of his ongoing AAT application for review of the student visa refusal decision.

20. A mandatory legal consequence of the cancellation is that the applicant has a risk factor under Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4013. This means he would not be eligible for the grant of a visa within 3 years of the date of cancellation (with limited exceptions)[3]. This would be relevant to his application for a subclass 500 Student visa, and the ongoing review application before the Tribunal. In practice, PIC 4013 would likely prevent the grant of the visa before April 2024, even if the Tribunal were to set aside the refusal decision, and if the applicant were to meet all the other criteria.

    [3] See PIC 4013(b)(i), (ii)

21. If the visa is cancelled, s.48(1)(b)(ii) also would restrict the applicant’s options to make a valid visa application to those classes of visa prescribed in reg 2.12 (which, relevantly, does not include student visas).

22. The Tribunal places some limited weight on this factor against cancellation of the visa.

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

23. There are no other relevant matters.

    Summary

24. The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant’s circumstances. Having found that there was non-compliance, in the applicant’s failure to declare his previous SFV refusal, it has weighed the considerations against and in favour of the visa cancellation. It takes into account the limited significance of the incorrect information in the visa grant; the absence of a clear intent to deceive; the passage of some three years since the non-compliance; the applicant’s studies and his work in the aged care sector; and the risk that visa cancellation would disrupt his studies and vocational opportunities. These considerations are not strong or definitive, but taken together, they outweigh the considerations in favour of cancelling the visa.

    CONCLUSION

25. 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 not be cancelled.

    DECISION

26. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa.

    James Silva
    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.