Astuti (Migration) - [2023] AATA 3782

Astuti (Migration) [2023] AATA 3782 (2 November 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Ms Dwi Astuti
CASE NUMBER:  2302117
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1286751
MEMBER:K. Chapman
DATE:2 November 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.

Statement made on 02 November 2023 at 6:31pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Spouse) – bogus documents – birth certificates obtained via agent – contribution to the community – Australian citizen husband and child – best interests of the child – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 48, 97-105, 107-109, 140, 189,198, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.41
CASES
Botha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 362
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, on 9 February 2023, to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa, pursuant to s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
On 7 December 2022, the applicant was issued with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of her Subclass 801 visa, on the basis that she submitted bogus documents with her visa application. In particular, the delegate determined that submitted Birth Certificates from Indonesia, pertaining to the applicant and three of her children, were non-genuine documents.
The applicant responded to the NOICC on 23 December 2022, through her solicitor then on the record. Following consideration of that response, the delegate cancelled the applicant’s visa, citing s 103 of the Act. On 17 February 2023, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the visa refusal decision, providing a copy of that decision with her application.
The applicant appeared in person before the Tribunal on 15 September 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also took evidence in person from Mr Robert Brunsdon, the applicant’s husband. The young daughter of the couple, who is an Australian citizen, also attended the hearing. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages. The applicant confirmed she understood the interpreter (noting also she provided much of her evidence utilising the English language). The applicant was unrepresented at the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.
ISSUES AND LAW
The issues in the present review are whether the grounds for cancellation are made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s 109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s 107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s 107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this review are attached to this decision.
The Tribunal also notes that a Certificate pursuant to s 375A of the Act, dated 23 February 2023, is contained in Departmental file BCC2021/1286751. The Tribunal provided a copy of the Certificate to the applicant. During the review hearing, submissions were invited upon the validity of the Certificate and no objection to its validity was made. The Tribunal notes that the material under cover of the Certificate pertains to Departmental liaison with Indonesian authorities, regarding the veracity of the submitted Birth Certificates relating to the applicant and three of her children. During the hearing, the Tribunal raised this material with the applicant utilising the procedure in s 359AA of the Act.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence at the review hearing
The Tribunal had the benefit of taking the evidence of the applicant and her husband in person at the review hearing. In summary, the evidence before the Tribunal establishes the following matters. The applicant was first married to an Indonesian man, whom she separated from in 2004 following the infliction of family violence upon her. She escaped the family home in Indonesia, taking two of her three children with her. Having departed the family home in such circumstances, the applicant was not able to take her Indonesian identity documents with her. Following this relationship breakdown, the applicant commenced a new relationship with a New Zealand citizen. A child of that relationship was born in 2010.
The applicant explained that due to her lack of identity documents, combined with the circumstances in which she escaped her first husband, she was unable to obtain an Indonesian passport. The applicant told the Tribunal that she made enquiries with an Indonesian Government official in Bali, where she was living at the time, who recommended an agent for her to consult to regularise her status. The applicant explained that she was not an educated person and trusted her agent. She paid him $500 to obtain identity documents in a maiden name, so she could then obtain an Indonesian passport.
The applicant advised that she met the Partner Subclass 801 visa sponsor, Mr Robert Brunsdon, in 2011 in Bali. They commenced a relationship and she visited Australia with him in 2012 and 2013. The applicant married Mr Brunsdon in 2014 in Bali, where they lived together for around one year. In 2015, the applicant moved to Australia with her husband and applied for the Partner visa on 18 October 2016. The applicant explained that she obtained a Bridging Visa A at that time and was unable to travel outside of Australia. The applicant told the Tribunal she included three of her children as secondary applicants in the Partner visa application. In due course, the Department requested identity documents for these children, so the applicant contacted her agent in Bali again. She paid the agent $3,000 to obtain Birth Certificates for them. In due course, the applicant submitted these documents to the Department.
The applicant returned to Bali, holding a Bridging Visa B, in 2018. She advised that she learned on this trip that the documents from the agent were fake, following interaction with the Civil Registry. Apparently, the agent thereafter blocked the applicant’s phone number and she lost contact with him. The applicant returned to Australia later in 2018. The following year, she gave birth to her youngest child in Perth. Mr Brunsdon is the father of that child and accordingly their daughter is an Australian citizen. In September 2019, the applicant was granted the Subclass 801 Partner visa.
From 2020 onwards, the applicant and Mr Brunsdon separated, then reconciled, on several occasions. The applicant advised the Tribunal that during one period of separation, Mr Brunsdon informed the Department that the submitted identity documents from Bali were bogus. Thereafter, the Department investigated the applicant and her Subclass 801 visa was subsequently cancelled. When questioned by the Tribunal as to her knowledge of the veracity of the relevant identity documents, the applicant initially maintained that she thought the agent had given her bona fide documentation. As the hearing progressed, the applicant sought to distance herself from any wrongdoing, blaming the agent for deceiving her.
Pursuant to the procedure in s 359AA of the Act, the Tribunal raised ‘the gist’ of the material under cover of the s 375A non-disclosure certificate with the applicant. That is, the material indicating the submitted identity documents are bogus, as advised by Indonesian authorities. In due course, the applicant accepted that the documents are bogus, although she maintained that she was surprised to learn this from the Department. Later in the hearing, Mr Brunsdon gave evidence indicating that the applicant was likely to have been aware of the deficiencies in the identity documents when she obtained them. Ultimately, the applicant conceded that she had a suspicion the documents were bogus when given to her by the agent, although she hoped that they were not.
The applicant presently resides in Bundaberg with her husband, Mr Brunsdon, and their four year old Australian citizen daughter, in a house rented from a family member. The applicant and her husband both work as supporter workers in the disability sector. Their relationship is stable now and their child is much more settled than when they were apart. The applicant also assists her in-laws, who each have health issues. Additionally, Mr Brunsdon has a range of health issues and the applicant renders assistance to him as required in this regard. The applicant remains in contact with two of her adult children in Indonesia, the third adult child not being in contact with her. Further, the applicant maintains regular contact with her thirteen year old daughter, fathered by a New Zealand citizen, who resides with the applicant’s mother in Bali. The applicant provides remittance income to her mother and this child.
Both the applicant and Mr Brunsdon informed the Tribunal that they would face significant hardship if the Partner visa was cancelled. In particular, they cited their desire not to split up their family, which would cause significant hardship to their four year old Australian citizen daughter. For example, they want their daughter to be schooled in Australia and not be made to grow up in Indonesia. They indicated they were each making a contribution to Australia through their work in the disability sector, did not derive Centrelink benefits and expressed their wish to raise their daughter in Bundaberg. The applicant seeks to make a positive contribution to the Australian community and does not want her Partner visa cancelled. She hopes to be able to travel to Indonesia in the future, to regularise her identity documentation in the Courts.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s 107 notice?
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.
The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s 107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s 107 notice was non-compliance with s 103 of the Act, in that the applicant submitted bogus documents with her Partner visa application. The relevant documents are Birth Certificates from Indonesia, pertaining to the applicant and three of her children.
The Tribunal notes the term ‘bogus document’ is defined in s 5(1) of the Act (see the attachment to this decision). This definition includes a document that is ‘counterfeit’. The Tribunal accepts that the ordinary English language meaning of ‘counterfeit’ is recorded in the Cambridge Dictionary (online edition) as:
‘made to look like the original of something, usually for dishonest or illegal purposes.[1]
[1] Cambridge Dictionary (online edition), accessed 2 November 2023.
It is clear to the Tribunal that the submitted Birth Certificates from Indonesia, pertaining to the applicant and three of her children, are bogus documents. This is apparent from the advice of the Indonesian authorities provided to the Department. Additionally, Mr Brunsdon, and in due course the applicant, confirmed their suspicions as to the non-genuineness of the relevant documents. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the relevant documents are bogus.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s 103 by the applicant in the way described in the s 107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
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).
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;
·     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; and
·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.
The Tribunal has also very carefully considered the attribution of weight to the evidence before it in assessing whether the applicant’s visa should be cancelled. In doing so, the Tribunal is mindful of the observations of Collier J in Botha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 362 at [39]:
There is ample authority at high level in this country that it is for a decision-maker to attribute such weight to relevant information as it sees fit: see for example Kirby J in Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [24]; Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [197]; the plurality in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS (2010) 243 CLR 164 at [33].
The Tribunal has duly considered the applicant’s response to the NOICC and notes that it outlines her personal circumstances at that time. These circumstances weigh moderately against the cancellation of her Subclass 801 visa. This is particularly so, given the applicant has a young Australian citizen daughter.
The correct information in relation to the respective identities of the applicant and her three relevant children, as recorded in her visa application, is that their personal particulars are not as displayed on the submitted bogus documents. Rather, the bogus documents reflect inaccurate personal particulars which were created by an agent paid for by the applicant. She engaged this agent to obtain identity documents, so that Indonesian passports could be obtained without the input of the applicant’s first husband. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was wilfully blind as to the veracity of the documents she obtained from the agent. This is a very serious matter and weighs strongly in favour of cancelling the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the submitted Birth Certificates from Indonesia, pertaining to the applicant and three of her children, are bogus documents. There are no genuine documents upon which these bogus documents have been based. Therefore, no weight is given either in favour of, or against, the cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa in relation to the prescribed circumstance regarding the content of the genuine document.
The Tribunal forms the view that the decision regarding the applicant being granted the Subclass 801 visa was based partly on incorrect information and bogus documents. That is, the applicant provided incorrect information and bogus documents regarding her identity and that of three of her children born in Indonesia. She was wilfully blind to the veracity of the documents she obtained from the agent. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that the circumstances in relation to the grant of the Subclass 801 visa to the applicant weigh strongly in favour of cancelling her Subclass 801 visa.
The Tribunal has found that the applicant was wilfully blind to the veracity of the documents she obtained from the agent. It is worth pausing to reflect that the matter of non-genuine documents only came to the attention of the Department following the ‘dob-in’ information provided by Mr Brunsdon. After careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred weigh strongly in favour of cancelling the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the subsequent behaviour of the applicant concerning her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant failed to comply with s 105 of the Act, the duty to correct incorrect answers, in a timely fashion. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the subsequent behaviour of the applicant concerning her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act weighs strongly in favour of cancelling her Subclass 801 visa.
The Tribunal has carefully considered whether there are any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied there are no other instances of non-compliance by the applicant, aside from the matters outlined in the primary visa cancellation decision. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that the lack of other instances of non-compliance weighs slightly against the cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa.
The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance with s 103 has been carefully considered by the Tribunal. Regarding the provision of the bogus Birth Certificates, the Tribunal notes that some years have now passed since their submission to the Department. Given the passage of time, the potential adverse weight attributable to this prescribed circumstance is mitigated. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance weighs slightly against cancelling the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa.
The Tribunal has carefully considered whether there have been any breaches of the law by the applicant since her non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches. The Tribunal does not have material before it to indicate that the applicant has breached Australian law since her non-compliance with s 103 of the Act. Of note, the applicant has not had any offence proven since her non-compliance, to the knowledge of the Tribunal. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that the lack of proven breaches of the law by the applicant since her non-compliance weighs moderately against the cancellation of her Subclass 801 visa.
It is contended on behalf of the applicant that she has made a contribution to the community by way of being currently employed as a disability support worker in regional Australia. Further, she provides assistance to her in-laws, who both suffer medical afflictions. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has made a contribution to the community in the manner contended. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s contribution to the community weighs moderately against the cancellation of her Subclass 801 visa.
The applicant submits that her present circumstances weigh against the cancellation of her Subclass 801 visa. It is contended that she is in a committed relationship with her husband and that they are together raising their four year old Australian citizen daughter in Bundaberg. Additionally, the applicant wishes to continue working in the disability sector and assisting her in-laws. Further, she provides care to her husband when his medical conditions impede him. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is the primary care giver for her young daughter. It is also accepted that she is gainfully employed in the disability sector and that she provides assistance to her husband and her in-laws when required. Following careful consideration, in relation to the present circumstances of the applicant, the Tribunal affords very strong weight against cancelling her Subclass 801 visa. The Tribunal more fully addresses considerations relating to the applicant’s children and regarding international obligations below.

While the factors prescribed in reg 2.41 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.
The Tribunal has considered whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and subject to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention. If the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa is cancelled and she does not hold a valid visa, she will become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention under s 189 of the Act and removal under s 198 of the Act. She may also be subject to s 48 of the Act, which limits further specific visa applications by a person who does not hold a substantive visa and who has had a visa cancelled since they last entered the migration zone. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant would be subject to indefinite detention and be unable to be removed to Indonesia. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the mandatory legal consequences of cancellation weigh neither in favour of, nor against, cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa, given they are the intended consequences of the legislation.
The Tribunal notes that there are no visas that would be consequentially cancelled, under s 140 of the Act, if the applicant’s visa is cancelled. Accordingly, this consideration weighs neither in favour of, nor against, cancellation of her Subclass 801 visa.
The Tribunal has carefully considered all other relevant matters, including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant (and her immediate family) if the Subclass 801 visa is cancelled. As outlined during the review hearing, the applicant contends she and her family would face significant hardship if her visa were cancelled. The Tribunal accepts the applicant would lose her employment in the disability sector in regional Australia if her visa were to be cancelled. Further, the Tribunal forms the view that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled, her young daughter would depart Australia with her, along with her husband. This would cause a significant degree of hardship to the applicant and her immediate family. In particular, the applicant’s Australian citizen daughter would face significant hardship in being practically denied the opportunity to reside in her country of nationality for many years. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the applicant and her immediate family would face a significant degree of hardship if her visa were to be cancelled and this weighs very strongly against the cancellation of the Subclass 801 visa.
The Tribunal has carefully considered whether any of Australia’s international obligations would be breached if the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa is cancelled. The Tribunal notes there is no persuasive evidence before it to suggest any non-refoulement obligations would be breached by cancelling the applicant’s visa. Nor is there any evidence pointing to the applicant and her immediate family being prevented from relocating to Indonesia.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the application to this matter of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) and, as is relevant to the family unit, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Tribunal acknowledges that ‘the best interests of the child’ must be treated as a primary consideration by administrative decision makers. Accordingly, the Tribunal has done so in this matter and elevates the weight afforded to the evidence, detailed above, which is suggestive of hardship being faced by the applicant and her Australian citizen daughter, which weighs against cancellation of the visa. With respect to the hardship faced by the applicant’s youngest daughter if the visa is cancelled, the Tribunal affords very strong weight against cancellation of the visa. With respect to the applicant’s other minor daughter, who resides in Indonesia, the Tribunal affords moderate weight against cancellation of the visa, given the loss of remittance income that would result from such cancellation. On balance, the Tribunal notes it is satisfied that the family unit would remain intact, even if the applicant’s visa was cancelled. For completeness, the Tribunal also notes that the primary consideration in relation to children may be balanced against other considerations, a matter to which it shall later return. The Tribunal further notes there are no other relevant matters to be considered in this review.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has carefully reflected upon the circumstances both against, and in favour of, cancelling the applicant’s Subclass 801 visa. For reasons previously expressed, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was wilfully blind to the veracity of the identity documents she obtained from an agent in Indonesia. The submission of such documents enabled her to obtain an Indonesian passport and travel to Australia, using personal particulars that are inaccurate. This is a very serious matter. However, the Tribunal does accept that there are some mitigating circumstances to be considered, particularly that the applicant escaped family violence from her first husband in Indonesia, which made it difficult for her to obtain identity documents.
Of importance, the Tribunal is cognisant that ‘the best interests of the child’ is a primary consideration, which in the applicant’s case weighs very strongly against cancelling her visa. In particular, the applicant has an Australian citizen daughter who was born in this country. Should the applicant’s visa be cancelled this child will, by necessity, need to relocate to Indonesia for many years. Practically, the applicant’s Australian citizen daughter would be denied the opportunity to grow up in her country of nationality if the Subclass 801 visa was cancelled. The Tribunal notes that there are other factors weighing against cancellation of the visa, as previously outlined. However, it is the Australian citizenship of the applicant’s daughter, in combination with the hardship she would face if removed from her country of birth, that leads the Tribunal not to exercise the discretion to cancel the visa in this very finely balanced review. Therefore, on balance, following much consideration, the Tribunal finds that the circumstances against cancelling the applicant’s visa outweigh those circumstances to the contrary.
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 outlined, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.
K. Chapman
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.
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.