Chao (Migration)

[2020] AATA 181

Chao (Migration) [2020] AATA 181 (3 February 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Ling-Wang Chao

CASE NUMBER:  1804904

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/4164902

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:3 February 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Statement made on 03 February 2020 at 6:16pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – ground for cancellation – incorrect information in previous visa application – Working Holiday (Extension) visa – regional work requirement – details of employment – consideration of discretion – grant of visa based on incorrect information – reliance on agent – credibility concerns – no independent evidence of claimed employment – decision under review affirmed

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

CASES
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 Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with s.101(b) of the Migration Act by providing incorrect answers when applying for a previous visa. The Department found the applicant had provided an incorrect answer in an application for a Working Holiday visa that was granted on 22 September 2015. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

   Background

3. The applicant is a citizen of Taiwan and is currently 29 years old. He came to Australia on 18 September 2014 as the holder of a Subclass 417 Working Holiday visa. The applicant was granted a further Working Holiday visa on 22 September 2015. On 20 October 2016 he was granted a Subclass 500 Student visa to study in Australia.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 26 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   Evidence of the visa applicant

6. The applicant advised he first came to Australia on 18 September 2014 for a working holiday. His first visa was granted for a 12 month period. According to the applicant during that time he did various types of work including in a restaurant, on a farm, in construction, and making deliveries. He confirmed that a second working holiday visa was granted. Regarding the farm work that was required for the grant of the second visa, the applicant said he worked at Brill Farm in Griffith where he picked cauliflower. The applicant said he worked at the farm from 4 January to 20 April 2015. He said he had found the job on Facebook through an agent.

7. The applicant claimed that while on the farm he lived in a caravan with other people who are doing the same work. He said he was paid a weekly rate in cash but did not receive receipts for payment or sign any employment contract. He said the accommodation cost $110 per week which was deducted from wages. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any evidence of having worked on the farm such as relevant paperwork but he said all the documents were lost after he moved and had not thought it necessary to retain them. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any electronic records to substantiate his claims but he did not.

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant why the farm management would say he was not employed there. He said he did not deal directly with the farm; instead it was through an agent. The applicant said he could only remember that the name of the farm manager was ‘Ryan’ and when he had tried to contact the supervisor there had been no response.

9. The Tribunal advised the applicant it would consider certain criteria in his case including the correct information and also, whether the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information. The Tribunal noted the circumstances in which the alleged non-compliance occurred had been discussed and the applicant’s submissions would be taken into account in the assessment of his case.

10. Regarding the applicant’s present circumstances, he told the Tribunal he had applied for a Student visa after a Working Holiday visa because his English was not good and he wanted to stay and study in Australia. He said he was planning to study English and then a Masters in Architecture. According to the applicant his background is in design and he has a Bachelor degree from his home country.  The applicant said he is working doing deliveries now because he currently holds a Bridging Visa A with no study rights. However, it was submitted a previous agent gave the applicant incorrect advice.

11. The applicant submitted that he had complied with all other conditions attached to his visas. Regarding the time that had elapsed since the alleged non-compliance, the Tribunal noted the Department found the non-compliance occurred when he applied for a second Working Holiday visa in 2015. When asked whether he had made any contribution to the community, the applicant said he had volunteered to distribute food to the homeless. The Tribunal explained the legal consequences of visa cancellation to the applicant and he indicated this would affect him because he would not be able to study a Master’s degree. He said there are no consequential cancellations or international obligations in his case.

12. Regarding any hardship that would result from the visa being cancelled the applicant referred to having a de facto partner in Australia who has a son (not his child). He said cancellation of his visa would mean he cannot come back to Australia and will also affect going to another country. The applicant said it was his belief the problem arose because of the supervisor and agent who he had to talk to, rather than the employer, because his English was not good. The applicant indicated to the Tribunal that the farm work did not involve payment based on an hourly rate rather it was paid per crate of fruit or vegetables picked. He said the salary was very limited and was not enough to cover accommodation, food and living expenses.

    Representative’s submission

13. The representative advised the applicant is a young man with a bright future and the visa application was lodged in 2015, a long time ago. He said the applicant believes his information is correct however he had not been aware that he needed to keep relevant documentation. It was submitted cancellation of the visa would be significant for the applicant’s whole life, also it would also be quite unfair and the applicant should be given a chance to study architecture. The representative also referred to the applicant having a de facto partner who has a child, he submitted they are living together and there would be an emotional impact if the applicant’s visa is cancelled.

    Further evidence of the applicant

14. The applicant said his employment should be checked with the agent or supervisor rather than the employer. He said when he held a Working Holiday visa he had not been able to find good work so he wanted to stay and study English.  The applicant said his first agent wrote to the Department which was why the Department started to inspect his visa. (The representative suggested the first agent had put something in the application that was not correct and the next agent also gave incorrect information). The applicant said he had not meant to do anything to breach the law in Australia as he had gathered all the information about how to apply for a second Working Holiday visa through the internet and friends. The applicant questioned why, if he intended to stay unlawfully, he would spend so much money hiring a lawyer and attending the hearing. He said if he wanted to do that he could have applied for a Visitor visa and stayed here unlawfully.

15. According to the applicant, when he approached a school about studying, he was referred to an agent and he has no idea how the visa was granted by the school, the Department or the agent. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that the issue was; he had claimed to have worked on a farm while that farm claimed he had not. The applicant reiterated he had not been able to talk to the employer, it was through an agent, but the Department was told by the employer he did not work there. The applicant said his wages were paid by the agent, not the employer. He said he had thought those people were the employer.

16. In conclusion, the applicant said many agents subcontract human resources from the farm so it is like a tenant sub-leasing to another tenant. He said this is what occurred, the employee could not talk to the employer, only to the agent.

17. The Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s written response to the Department’s s.107 notice dated 18 January 2018 in this decision.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

19. 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.

20. 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.

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

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

22. 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.101(b) in the following respects: the applicant was a non-citizen who completed his application in such a way that incorrect answers were given or provided.

23. On 13 August 2015 the applicant had applied for a Subclass 417 Working Holiday (extension) visa online and in response to a question asking whether the applicant had undertaken specified work in regional Australia for a total of 3 months he had answered “yes”. The applicant provided details of the specified work undertaken including the ABN of the business, the postcode and the start and end date. The applicant answered “yes” to a declaration that stated “I am applying for a second Working Holiday visa and have done 3 months specified work on my first Working Holiday visa.”  The Department received information from the owner of Brill Farms Pty Ltd, the employer listed by the applicant, that the information provided by the applicant was not correct.

24. In his response to the Department’s s.107 notice, the applicant did not agree the information was not correct and insisted he had worked on a farm from 4 January to 20 April 2015. He advised the Department he had been employed through an agent and believed the employer he worked for was Brill Farms. The applicant claimed he had tried to contact the agent again to obtain evidence of his employment but was unable to. The applicant stated in his response to the s.107 notice that he believed he had “fallen into a trap by an irresponsible agent”.  The applicant did not elaborate as to how or why he thought this had occurred.

25. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant stated that due to his level of English, he was recruited through an agent, had only dealt with the agent not the employer, and he was paid through the agent. The applicant was unable to provide evidence of his claims because, he said, he had not been aware of the need to keep any documents and had lost them when he moved. He also claimed to have tried to contact the recruitment agent but was given “the cold shoulder”. The applicant indicated he did not have any electronic records and did not provide any other evidence to verify his employment such as through making direct contact with the establishment where he claims to have spent three months picking vegetables.

26. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that the farm work did not involve payment based on an hourly rate rather it was paid per crate of fruit or vegetables picked and resulted in minimal wages after deductions for expenses. He also told the Tribunal he was paid through the agency. In his response to the Department’s s.107 notice however, the applicant said he was paid hourly, at a rate of $21.08 per hour, he and other workers were picked up every morning by the foreman and he “was paid every week by cash on time through the foreman”. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence is not consistent and not credible.

27. The Tribunal notes the employer in question did not indicate to the Department that the applicant may have worked on the farm through an agency, it was stated categorically that the applicant has never worked for them. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101(1) of the Migration Act by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

28. 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).

29. 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. Briefly, they are:

    ·     the correct information

30. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has been able to demonstrate that he did work for Brill Farms or any other farm for the required period to qualify for a Working Holiday visa extension. He claims to have most likely been the victim of an unscrupulous agent but given he claims to have physically worked on a farm for more than 3 months; he should have been able to provide an address or make contact with the establishment himself to verify his claims.

31. The Tribunal finds the correct information is that the applicant did not work for Brill Farms or any other farm for three months, as required and therefore did not satisfy the regional work requirements for the grant of a Subclass 417 Working Holiday (extension) visa. This weighs against the applicant in considering this criterion.

    ·     the content of the genuine document (if any)

32. The Tribunal is not considering the content of any document in this case.

    ·     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 finds the applicant’s claims of having undertaken regional work while holding a Subclass 417 Working Holiday visa was fundamental to the decision to grant him a second visa. If the correct information had been given, that is the applicant had answered “no” to the question asking whether he had undertaken specified work in regional Australia for a total of 3 months the visa would not have been granted. This weighs against the applicant in this case.

    ·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

34. The circumstances were that on 13 August 2015 the applicant had applied for a Subclass 417 Working Holiday (extension) visa on the basis of having satisfied the regional work requirements while holding his first Working Holiday visa. The applicant indicated in the application form that he had undertaken specified work in regional Australia for a total of 3 months and provided details of the work undertaken as well as the ABN of the business, the postcode and the start and end date. The applicant had also answered “yes” to a declaration that he was applying for a second Working Holiday visa and had done 3 months specified work on his first Working Holiday visa.  Based on the information provided the applicant was granted a second Working Holiday visa. After the applicant had applied for and been granted a Student visa, the Department received information from the owner of Brill Farms Pty Ltd that the information provided by the applicant was false.

35. The applicant claimed he had found employment through an agent who arranged everything and with whom he communicated. However, he gave contradictory information to the Department and the Tribunal about the way he was paid and by whom. According to the applicant’s evidence, he had researched and spoken to friends about how to apply for a second Working Holiday visa which suggests he would have known the importance of being able to provide evidence of having undertaken the required regional work but he was not able to do so. In this regard the applicant suggested both that he had not been given formal documentation and that he had lost the relevant paperwork when he moved. The Tribunal did not find the applicant’s evidence to be consistent or credible.

36. The applicant claims he was the victim of an unscrupulous agent but the Tribunal does not find his explanation of the circumstances credible. It is not clear how or why an agent would have duped the applicant in this way without his knowledge. The applicant maintained he had worked for a farm and if it was not Brill Farms, he did not know who it was. Despite this, the applicant’s oral evidence about the farm work was superficial and the Tribunal found it unconvincing. For example, he stated in very general terms that he shared accommodation with others, he picked vegetables, he was collected daily by a supervisor and he was paid. As well as having no independent evidence of the claimed employment, the applicant did not provide a level of detail or knowledge that would be expected if he had undertaken physical agricultural work for more than 3 months. For these reasons the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred weigh against the applicant in considering whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to cancel the Student visa.

    ·     the present circumstances of the visa holder

37. At the time of the Department’s decision the applicant held a Student visa and had been enrolled to study. His evidence to the Tribunal was that he had been planning to study English and then a Masters in Architecture. The applicant’s Student visa has now ceased and he would be required to apply for a further visa. At the time of the hearing the applicant said he was working as a delivery driver and holds a Bridging Visa without study rights. No evidence was submitted to indicate the applicant would not be able to pursue a post-graduate degree in his home country and the Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s claims of wanting to study a Master’s degree in Australia outweigh the reasons to cancel his 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

1. The Tribunal notes the applicant responded to the Department’s s.107 notice maintaining he had undertaken three months of regional farm work, from January to April 2015, for an employer he believed was Brill Farms Pty Ltd. The applicant was unable to provide any independent evidence either to the Department or the Tribunal that this was in fact the case. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s bare assertions that he had been employed in regional farm work as required for the grant of a Subclass 417 Working Holiday (Extension) visa. By insisting that he did in his response to the s.107 notice, the applicant breached s.107(2) of the Act. This provision states that if the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement. This weighs against the applicant in the Tribunal’s consideration of whether to exercise the discretion to cancel his visa.

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

2. The Tribunal is not aware of any other instances of non-compliance by the applicant.

   ·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

3. The Tribunal notes the non-compliance occurred when the applicant lodged an application for a Subclass 417 Working Holiday (Extension) visa on 13 August 2015 and provided incorrect information. The applicant did not seek to correct the information at any time and went on to apply for a Student visa which was granted. The applicant claimed he had tried to contact the agent who arranged the farm work for him but was rebuffed. In his response to the Department’s s.107 notice the applicant posed the question of who he had worked for if it was not Brill Farms. However, since being informed on 8 January 2018 of Brill Farm’s statement that he never worked for them, the applicant does not appear to have taken any direct steps to find out who his alleged employer was such as providing an address or detailed information about the workplace. The Tribunal gives this consideration no weight in favour of the applicant.

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

4. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate the applicant has breached any laws since the non-compliance occurred.

   ·     any contribution made by the holder to the community

5. The applicant gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing that he had volunteered to distribute food to the homeless. He said he had not done this through an organisation and did not provide any independent evidence to support his claims. The Tribunal places minimal weight in favour of the applicant on this criterion.

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

   ·Whether there 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

7. The Tribunal explained the legal consequences of visa cancellation and the applicant indicated this would affect him because he would not be able to study a Master’s degree. Since the applicant submitted he has a Bachelor degree from his home country, there appears to be no reason he could not pursue a Master’s degree in Taiwan also. Therefore, the Tribunal places no weight on the applicant’s claims in this regard.

8. The cancellation of the visa means that the applicant could potentially become an unlawful non-citizen liable for detention and removal from Australia. The applicant would be subject to s.48 of the Migration Act which would limit his options for applying for a visa. In future the applicant would also have to satisfy Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4013 which may prevent the grant of a visa for up to three years. However, those are the intended consequences of the legislation and are not sufficient reason for the applicant’s visa to not be cancelled

   ·whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

9. The applicant advised the Tribunal there were no consequential cancellations in his case.

   ·whether any international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation, such as non-refoulement obligations, family unity principles or the obligation to consider the best interests of the child

10. Regarding any international obligations, including family unity and the best interests of the child, the applicant advised he has a de facto partner who he lives with and his partner has a child from a previous relationship. However, the applicant did not provide any evidence or submissions about his partner or the child such that the Tribunal could make any findings in this regard.

    ·any other relevant matters, including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members

11. The Tribunal considered the degree of hardship that will be caused as a result of the applicant’s visa being cancelled. It was submitted cancellation of the applicant’s visa would mean he cannot come back to Australia and it will also impact his ability to travel to another country. The Tribunal accepts there will be some degree of hardship caused by cancellation of the visa and gives this consideration a little weight in the applicant’s favour.

    Conclusion

12. 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 weighed the evidence and considering all the relevant circumstances as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

13. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

    Wendy Banfield
    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.