Cahill (Migration) - [2022] AATA 931

Cahill (Migration) [2022] AATA 931 (21 January 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Jack Finbar Cahill
CASE NUMBER:  2113530
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/2502744
APPLICANT:  Ms Shannon Lacey Mulhall
CASE NUMBER:  2112761
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/2502736
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Ling Sands (MARN: 1687230)

MEMBER:Luke Hardy
DATE:21 January 2022
PLACE OF DECISIONS: Sydney
DECISIONS: The Tribunal affirms the respective decisions to cancel the applicants’ Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visas.

Statement made on 21 January 2022 at 1:54pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 – there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice – applicant had provided false information –applicant didn’t undertake specified work in regional Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 99, 101, 107, 109
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.41
CASES
DUA16 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 1128
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

These are applications for review of decisions made by delegates of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicants’ Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants in this case, Mr Cahill and Ms Mulhall, are a de facto couple from Ireland who each sought a one-year extension on their respective twelve-month working holiday visas.
Ms Mulhall’s visa was cancelled on 15 September 2021. Mr Cahill’s visa was cancelled on 29 September 2021. They had both been granted the visas in October 2020.
The respective delegates in each case cancelled the visas on the basis that the respective applicants had provided incorrect information to the Minister in breach of s 101(b) 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.
The applicants both appeared before the Tribunal, constituted by me, on 19 January 2022 via MS Teams to give evidence and present arguments; they agreed to be heard together. They are both represented in relation to the review by an adviser who did not attend the hearing.
For convenience and concision, I present my decisions in a single, common record.
For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision to cancel the respective applicants’ visa should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.
The exercise of the cancellation power under s 109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s 107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s 107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. Extracts of the Act relevant to this case are attached to this decision.
In the present matter, I am satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s 107 and that the notice issued under s 107 complied with the statutory requirements.
Was there non-compliance as described in the s 107 notice?
The issue before me 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 notices sent to each applicant was non-compliance with s 101(b), the respective delegates citing breaches of the following requirements:
Section 101       Visa applications to be correct
A non-citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:
(b) no incorrect answers are given or provided.
In relation to the above section(s), I note the application of sections 98, 99 and 100 of the
Act, which state:
Section 98         Completion 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.
Section 99         Information 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.
Section 100       Incorrect 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.
[italics and bold text as in the original decisions]
The incorrect information particularised in the s 107 notices related to claimed specified work for 90 days in regional Australia. As described in the respective s 107 notices,
On 16 June 2020, you lodged an application for a Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) visa using the Department’s online lodgement facility, providing the following answers on the electronic visa form:
In response to the question ‘Has the applicant undertaken 3 months of specified work as the holder of a first Working Holiday visa (subclass 417)?’ you answered ‘Yes’.
Under the heading ‘Details of specified work undertaken’, you provided the following answers (in part):
Employer Details
Legal registered name:   Tradeconnex PTY LTD
Trading name:   Tradeconnex PTY LTD
Australian Business Number (ABN):            48615055288
Employer business address
Address:   418A Elizabeth Street
Suburb / Town:   Surry Hills
State / Territory:   New South Wales
Postcode:   2010
Work address
Business name at this location:                   Yarrenlea Solar Farm
Address:   Yarrenlea Road
Suburb / Town:   Yarrenlea
State / Territory:   Queensland
Postcode:   4356
Work conditions
Employment type:   Labour hire company
Industry type:   Construction
Industry type sub-group:   Construction
Description of duties:   panel scanning, quality control, labouring
Date from:   06 Jan 2020
Date to:   24 May 2020
Total days worked:   90
Under the heading ‘Working holiday declarations’, in response to the question ‘Are applying for their second Working Holiday visa (subclass 417) and have completed 3 months of specified work as the holder of a first working holiday visa’, you answered ‘Yes’.
[italics and bold text as in the original decisions]
The Department initiated employment verification checks with TradeConnex Pty Ltd, the business registered under ABN 48615055288, to verify the respective visa holders’ employment claims. On 14 October 2020, TradeConnex Pty Ltd contacted the Department and advised that the visa holders never worked at the business.
This triggered the s 107 notices and the applicants were invited to comment on the possible non-compliance and to give a written response why their respective visas should not be cancelled. The Department informed the applicants that their responses should provide reasons as to why they thought they had complied, or why they had not complied, with section 101(b) and why they thought their visas should not be cancelled, providing reasons and any supporting evidence.
Each applicant responded through their adviser. Mr Cahill’s response is summarised in the delegate’s decision as follows:
·He first arrived in Australia on 10 October 2019 where he provided all correct and honest answers on his Passenger card.
·He applied for his second Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) with assistance from an unknown agent who he paid $1000. He suspects he is a victim of fraud.
·He was advised by the agent that the second Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) required regional farm work. He advised that the agent that he had not undertaken any regional farm work. He trusted the agent to lodge his visa application and trusted he was eligible to apply for it.
·He provided his agent his truthful work history and he received no advice that this would be changed in his second Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) visa application. Therefore, he blames the agent for completing his visa application with incorrect details.
·His living arrangements and other personal details listed on his second Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) visa application were incorrect. He provided his actual address and the agent changed it. He also found out the agent listed his own personal email address so he could receive email correspondence on behalf of him.
·He is shocked with all the incorrect information listed in his second Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) visa application.
·He was unable to physically identify his agent during the covid-19 lockdown. He had no comprehensive knowledge in migration law and was unable to identify what the requirements were for the second Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417).
·His name was spelt incorrectly by the agent on the second Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417). He believes this should have been an error identified by the Department and that this visa application should not have been granted because of the misspelt name.
·The Department should have provided an “s57 Natural Justice letter” before the visa was granted. If this notice was provided, he would have discovered fraud and acted honestly.
·He notes that the company Tradeconnex Pty Ltd advised the Department on 14 October 2020 which was only four days after his Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) was granted. Therefore, he thinks the Department may or may not had already suspected the adverse information submitted to the application before the visa was granted.
·If his visa is cancelled, this could result in his Student visa application or other visa applications lodged in the future could be refused.
·He has contributed to the community by registering for social support volunteer in Uniting NSW
·He is trying to obtain further documentation of evidence that he was trying to find employment.
·The migration agent quotes high court case, DUA16 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 1128, which the migration agent claims relates to a similar situation where a third party or agent dishonestly represented their client.
·The visa holder has a partner in Australia whose Working Holiday visa is also being considered for cancellation.
Ms Mulhall’s response was summarised as follows:
·The visa holder had not undertaken any farm work.
·The migration agent claims the visa holder engaged the assistance of an “agent” to submit her visa application.
·The migration agent claims that there is no evidence before the Minister that the visa holder has caused the information to be filled or filled on her behalf. She claims that the visa holder was not the person who filled the application, and the visa holder did not provide to the agent, who filled form with such work information displayed in her application. She further claims that the visa holder had no idea what was answered or provided in her application by the time the application was submitted.
·The migration agent claims that “there was not non-compliance for visa holder gave or caused given to the incorrect answers to her 417 visa application, and it has never been any non-compliance on section 98, section 99, section 100, and section 101 of the Act for the visa holder”. The migration agent also claims that the visa holder is the victim of the fraud.
·The migration agent states, the visa holder simply entrusted the agent and assumed she was eligible to applying for second working holiday visa by providing true work statements to the agent via email correspondence, dated 16 June 2020.
The respective delegates found that the s 101(b) breaches had occurred in each respective case.
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicants more or less repeated these responses, with the exception that they now named the “unknown” person to whom they had entrusted $1,000 each for their visa extension applications: they provided the name Lee Hansol, which may be a real name or an alias, pertaining to a person who allegedly worked via a Facebook page and who is currently being sought by Australian authorities in connection was suspected migration fraud on quite a large scale.
Both applicants continued to argue that they did not regard themselves as being responsible in any way for the incorrect information in their applications as neither of them had been the person who filled out and submitted their applications. Neither of them, they said, had even seen, let alone signed, the applications that were submitted.
Both applicants said they applied for twelve-month visa extensions having no idea what the criteria or requirements for such applications entailed. Both applicants said they had no idea that they had to show evidence of at least 90 days of specified work in regional Australia. They both indicated that they had never heard of such requirements and that, because they both had no idea what would be required of them, they sought assistance from someone else. They said a friend had recommended Lee Hansol, who they never met and with whom they never had even one conversation.
I questioned how both applicants could have heard of the possibility of extending their visas without hearing anything about what was required, especially since they told me they had a friend who suggested they engage an agent. In response, they both said that it might seem pretty unbelievable and that they were not proud of how ignorant and naïve they had been, but that they were speaking the absolute truth.
Both applicants said they only heard about the requirement to have undertaken 90 days of specified work in regional Australia after they received their s 107 notices and consulted their current migration agent.
I put to the applicants that upon receiving their first twelve-month visas they would normally have received a letter from the Department discussing compliance with those visas and how to contact the Department for any information they might require as to how to comply with or extend them. The Department’s website discusses s 417 visa extensions and how to meet the criteria for one in its website. In response, both applicants said they had no recollection of any such material accompanying the issue of their visas.
I put to the applicants that there is plenty of evidence before me of working holiday visa holders who, unlike them, have little or no English, but who have not only been able to comply with their visas but have also been able to ascertain the requirements for a twelve-month extension and genuinely fulfil them. In response, both applicants indicated again that they were not proud of how ignorant and naïve they had been.
Mr Cahill said that Lee Hansol had spelt his name wrong. He indicated that if he had provided any of the information in his application himself he would at least have spelt his own name correctly.
Having discussed the s 98 issue, I raised the s 100 issue about there being no requirement in the Act that “incorrect information” must be provided deliberately. Both applicants acknowledged that they were now aware of this.
I put to the applicants that it seemed hard to conceive that they held visas that they wanted to extend in 2020 and took no time or trouble to ascertain how they could extend those visas as cheaply as possible without handing over $1,000 to a completely unknown and unseen individual. They said they completely understood how confounding this seemed.
In any event, both applicants acknowledged their respective non-compliance. Both said that they had never undertaken specified work for 90 days in regional Australia.
For these reasons, I find that there was non-compliance with s 101(b) by each of the applicants in the way described in the respective s 107 notices.
Should the visa be cancelled?
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notices given to the respective applicants under s 107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visas 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 applicants’ responses (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.
I shall deal with each prescribed circumstances one by one; except where specifically indicated, each discussion covers both applicants as they explicitly agreed with each other’s testimony throughout the hearing.
· the correct information
The correct information is that the applicants did not respectively undertake specified work in regional Australia as defined in the legislative instrument in effect at the time for a period of three months (or 90 days). They did not work for Tradeconnex Pty Ltd between 6 January 2020 and 24 May 2020. Hence, the correct information is significantly different from the information provided by the applicants.
I give significant negative weight to this consideration in respect of both applicants.
· the content of the genuine document (if any)
Since no genuine document is being considered, it follows that I am unable to give any weight either way with regard to this consideration.
· whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder(s) was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document
The respective applicants’ employment details regarding specified regional work experience were central to the grant of their respective Working Holiday (Extension) visa and those details comprised incorrect information.
I give significant negative weight to this consideration in respect of both applicants.
· the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred
Both applicants have claimed they were unable physically to identify their agent (Lee Hansol) for a variety of reasons. Both claim they had no knowledge of Working Holiday visa requirements or migration law in general. Both claim to have been surprised and shocked with all the incorrect information listed in their second Working Holiday (Extension) (subclass 417) visa applications. Both have claimed that that natural justice letters should have been sent to them upon detection of incorrect information, appearing not to appreciate the natural justice in sending them notices of intention to consider cancellation of their visas with invitations to comment and respond.
I have considered the applicants response to their respective s 107 notices. I find that the circumstances in which the respective instances in which non-compliance occurred do not outweigh the grounds for the respective cancellations.
I give some negative weight to this consideration in respect of both applicants.
· the present circumstances of the visa holder(s)
Both applicants told me they are working in jobs for employers who need them to stay on during this period of emergence from Covid-19 lockdown. Mr Cahill mentioned having applied for a student visa for which he would be ineligible if the cancellation of the working visa continues to obtain. He said that he is working for a company that provides revenue-based funding to assist small companies to grow. Ms Mulhall said that she is a hairdresser in a salon that has had difficulty hiring and maintaining staff during the current outbreak of the omicron strain of Covid-19.

Both applicants said they would like to be able to have the cancellations of their visas revoked so that they could see more of Australia, including Adelaide in particular, which has been subject to rigorous entry and travel restrictions applicable to all of South Australia. They said that they have always enjoyed going out and engaging with the culture and economy here and would like to do so for a few more months after quitting their jobs before visiting New Zealand and, perhaps, some of Asia before returning to Ireland.
I acknowledge that negative decisions in this case would cause some detriment and challenges to the respective applicants’ employers at a critical time of economic recovery from lockdowns and spikes in new Covid-19 infections. I also acknowledge that the cancellation left as it is in Mr Cahill’s would likely prevent him from pursuing a student visa at this time and possibly for a further three years. However, I do not find that any of these circumstances are so compelling as to give any of them much weight in either applicant’s favour.
· the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder(s) concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act
No evidence before me suggests that either applicant has been non-compliant with the Act in any regard since receiving their respective s 107 notifications. However, I find that this weighs only a little in their favour.
· any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder(s) known to the Minister
I am not aware of any other instances of non-compliance. I give this consideration a little wight in favour of both applicants.
· the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance
The non-compliance in each case occurred in mid-2020, around a year and a half ago. I conclude that in both cases the non-compliance occurred quite recently. Whereas the applicant say they have engaged with the culture in Australia, public health lockdowns permitting, I find that there has not been a significant passing of time since the respective instances of non-compliance occurred such as, say, to have led to either of the applicants forming potentially significant ties in Australia. In this light, I give very little weight in the respective applicants’ favour to this particular consideration.
· any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches
I am not aware of any breaches of the law by either applicant. I give some weight to the consideration in favour of both applicants.
· any contribution made by the visa holder(s) to the community
Mr Cahill in particular mentioned that he signed up to perform volunteer work for church agency. He provided no evidence of any work undertaken. It is very hard to give this consideration much weight in his favour.
The factors considered above 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.
Accordingly, I have considered whether the cancellations of the visas in these cases would lead to consequential cancellations of visas of visas of other persons in Australia, but there is no evidence before me of such an outcome and I give no weight either way to this consideration.
I have also considered whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would or may be breached as a result of the cancellation of the respective visas. I even raised this with the applicants who said they have no potentially relevant concerns about returning to the republic of Ireland. Ultimately, I find that the cancellations would not give rise to breaches of Australia’s obligations under relevant international agreements. Accordingly, I give no weight either way to this consideration.
I have also considered whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision. In both cases, should the respective cancellations stand, a bar under section 48 of the Act will also be imposed, limiting the respective applicants’ options to apply for further visas from within Australia. Furthermore, they will also be affected by Public Interest Criterion 4013, where they may be prevented from being granted certain types of visas for a period of three years from the date of their visa cancellations.
I have also considered that if the respective visa cancellations stand, the applicants will become unlawful non-citizens and may be liable for detention under section 189 and removal under section 198 of the Act if they do not depart Australia voluntarily, as they would no longer hold valid visas.
I am also aware that when Mr Cahill lodged his application for a student visa, he was granted an associated Bridging A (subclass 010) visa (BVA). In the event of a negative decision in this case, that BVA would likely cease automatically as a result. Mr Cahill might be eligible to apply for a Bridging E (subclass 050) visa. If granted this would enable him to lawfully remain in Australia until the outcome of his pending student visa application.
Overall I give the considerations discussed in the preceding three paragraphs some small weight against cancelling the respective applicants’ working holiday visas.
Finally, I have considered other relevant factors, such as the argument relating to DUA16 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 1128, which in Mr Cahill’s view relates to a similar situation where an agent dishonestly represented her client. As noted by the delegate, that the case relates to the dishonesty of a solicitor who was a registered migration agent, and to that registered migration agent taking a fee to provide a professional service in circumstances where she believed that the client would not pay for the service if the client were aware of the true nature of the service she intended to perform. By contrast, there is no evidence put before me to suggest that Lee Hansol is or ever was a registered migration agent. In fact, both applicants originally claimed they were assisted by an unknown person and that they took no interest in or pursued any curiosity about what they needed to do to obtain their visa extensions except to pay a stranger $1,000 each without having even one conversation with him.
There is insufficient information before me to be satisfied that the situation of the applicants resembles to any significant extent the situation dealt with in to DUA16 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 1128. Accordingly, I give no weight either way to existence of this judgment of the Court.
I have decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further to this, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, I conclude that the respective visas should be cancelled.
DECISIONS
The Tribunal affirms the respective decisions to cancel the applicants’ Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visas.
Luke Hardy
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.