Chen (Migration) - [2021] AATA 2212

Chen (Migration) [2021] AATA 2212 (15 June 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Yuchen Chen
CASE NUMBER:  2014310
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/1788371
MEMBER:Michael Cooke
DATE:15 June 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the

Statement made on 15 June 2021 at 1:03pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa – Subclass 801 (Spouse) – bogus document provided with visa application – statutory declaration purportedly completed and signed by sponsor – confidential adverse information – relationship may not have been mutual when visa granted – sponsorship withdrawn and retracted twice before final separation – forensic examination and statement by solicitor establishing signature as genuine – statement dictated by sponsor to applicant and signed before solicitor – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1)(a), 5F, 103, 107, 109(1), 359A, 375A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.15A(3)
CASE
Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Limited [2002] FCA 30; (2002) 66 ALD 579
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 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that] the applicant submitted bogus documents in regard to his visa application. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
On 17 December 2020 the Tribunal issued an Invitation to Comment as follows:
RE: S.375A CERTIFICATE DATED 28/09/2020 – MR YUCHEN CHEN
I am writing in relation to the application for review made by you in respect of a decision to cancel your Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.
On the Department file is a s.375A certificate, signed and dated 28 September 2020. It states that it would be contrary to the public interest to release the material because the information would disclose or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information. The Tribunal’s view is that it is a valid certificate.
A copy of the certificate is attached and you are invited to comment on the validity of it.
The applicant was also sent an Invitation pursuant to s.359A of the Act as follows:
INVITATION TO COMMENT ON OR RESPOND TO INFORMATION – MR YUCHEN CHEN
I am writing on instruction from the Member conducting your review, in relation to the application for review made by you in respect of a decision to cancel your Subclass801 (Spouse) visa.
In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.
Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.
The particulars of the information are:
·The Department has information that the Statutory Declaration purportedly signed by your sponsor (Xi Luo), is a fraudulent document and that she did not complete and sign this form or provide consent for the form to be prepared and signed by any other means. Evidence suggests this form was completed by you and that the declarant’s signature on the document was fraudulently signed.
·Further information before the Department appears to indicate that your relationship with Xi Luo had broken down on several occasions as evidenced by statements of sponsorship withdrawal and retractions of these withdrawals and that your relationship with your sponsor was not mutual at the time of grant of the Partner visa however you awaited the grant prior to leaving the relationship.
·Further information available to the Department appears to indicate that one of the Form 888 declarants were not known to the sponsor and as such their statement was not genuine.
This information is relevant to the review because:
·This document was submitted to the Department as evidence that you met the relevant criteria for a Partner visa and to demonstrate that the relationship with your sponsor was mutual, ongoing and continuous at the time.
·It appears that you have provided a bogus document to a Departmental officer who was performing a function under the Act, namely the assessment of a visa application. As such you may have failed to comply with section 103 of the Act.
·If the Departmental officer had been aware that this document was bogus at the time of assessing of the application, your Partner visa may not have been granted to you.
·Your Partner (Subclass 801) visa is now liable for cancellation under section 109 of the Act for non-compliance with section 103 of the Migration Act 1958.
Subject to your comments or response, this would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.
You are invited to give comments on or respond to the above information in writing.
The applicant responded to the Invitation on 13 January 2021 and included a plethora of additional information rebutting the adverse information in the Invitation pursuant to s.359A.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 February 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.
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, 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?
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 the following respects: provision of bogus documents.
Evidence of non-compliance:
The review applicant, Mr Chen, (the applicant) was sponsored for a combined Partner (subclass 820/801) visa by Ms Xi Lou - who was his wife at the time. He lodged an application for a Temporary Partner (Subclass 820) visa on 26 November 2015 and was granted this visa on 14 November 2016.
The Department wrote to the applicant on 26 November 2018 requesting information for the permanent stage of the Partner visa application process. On 5 December 2018 the completed form ‘Partner visa application – information for permanent stage processing’ was submitted in which he referred to supporting statements regarding his relationship. The applicant also uploaded the following supporting documentation
·Two of form 888 ‘Statutory Declaration by a supporting witness’ in relation to a Partner or Prospective marriage visa application from two separate witnesses,
·A Statutory Declaration he prepared and signed and
·A Statutory Declaration purportedly prepared by and signed by his sponsor Xi Lou on 29 November 2018.
Based on all the evidence provided and having met the relevant legislative requirements the applicant was granted a Partner (Subclass 801) (Permanent) visa on 17 December 2018.
The delegate subsequently informed (in his decision record) that the Department had information which claimed that the Statutory Declaration purportedly signed by the applicant’s sponsor was a fraudulent document. Furthermore, the information indicated that she did not complete and sign this form or provide consent for the form to be prepared and signed by any other means. The delegate opined that evidence before the Department suggested this form was completed by the applicant and that the declarant’s signature on the document was fraudulently signed.
The Department also held further information before it which appeared to indicate that he applicant’s relationship with his sponsor had broken down on several occasions. There was evidence of statements of sponsorship withdrawal and retractions of these withdrawals. This information suggested to the delegate that the applicant’s relationship with his sponsor was not mutual at the time of grant of the Partner visa. Yet, despite this, he had awaited the (successful) grant prior to leaving the relationship. Further information available to the Department appears to indicate that one of the form 888 declarants were not known to the sponsor and as such their statement was not genuine.
Non-compliance with section 103
The delegate having considered the evidence before him found that the applicant had not complied with section 103 of the Act because in support of his application for a Partner (Subclass 801) visa he submitted the following document:
·A Statutory Declaration purportedly prepared and signed by his sponsor, Xi Lou, on 29 November 2018
This document was considered bogus within the meaning of part (a) of section 5(1) of the Act which states:
Bogus document
A bogus document in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:
(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or
The delegate found that this document was submitted to the Department as evidence the applicant had met the relevant criteria for a Partner visa at time of decision. As such it demonstrated that the relationship with his sponsor was mutual, ongoing, and continuous at the time.
The delegate found that the applicant had provided a bogus document to a Departmental officer who was performing a function under the Act, namely the assessment of a visa application and as such he has failed to comply with section 103 of the Act.
The delegate opined that, had the Departmental officer been aware this document was bogus at the time of assessing of the application, the applicant’s Partner visa may not have been granted.
The delegate found, for all the above reasons, that the applicant’s Partner (Subclass 801) visa was liable for cancellation consideration under section 109, for non-compliance with section 103 of the Migration Act 1958.
Conclusion on non-compliance
The Tribunal has had the benefit of additional information forwarded by the applicant’s representative. This information was submitted to rebut the accusation of document fraud made by the delegate in his finding that the applicant had breached s.103 of the Act.
The applicant (in rebuttal) has provided the following additional information for the edification of the Tribunal:
·A Statutory Declaration in which the applicant explains how the Statutory Declarations were obtained using a solicitor to conduct the whole attestation process throughout.
·Confirmation by the aforesaid solicitor of her conduct of the various attestations made.
·Evidence from a professional handwriting expert concerning and rebutting the alleged fraudulent Statutory Declaration made by the sponsor, Ms Xi Lou, which was submitted to the Department by the applicant.
The Statutory Declaration reads as follows:
Dear Registrar,
The following submissions address the decision under review and the matters in the Tribunal's letter of 17 December 2020. In support thereof we have submitted the documents recently;
1.        The statutory declaration of applicant;
2.        The statutory declaration of Jun Huang;
3.        The statutory declaration of Yichen Cai; and
4.        Letter from Solicitor Ms Julia Pu.
We also enclose an expert report prepared by Mr Steve Dubecat, forensic document examiner. Mr Dubecat's resume is at appendix 5 to his report.
The reasons given by the delegate to cancel the applicant's visa under s. 109 of the Migration Act were that,
1.        The Department has information that the statutory declaration, purportedly signed by the applicant's sponsor, Xi Luo on 29 November 2018, was not signed by her, that it was completed by the applicant and fraudulently signed.
2.        The handwriting used to complete the applicant's statutory declaration of 29 November 2018 in support of the subclass 801 visa application was the same as " the document purportedly signed by Xi Luo" on that date.
3.        The sponsor had twice withdrawn her sponsorship and then retracted the withdrawals.
4.        The Tribunal's letter of 17 December 2020 also alleges that " ... information available to the Department appears to indicate that one of the Form 888 declarants were not known to the sponsor and as such their statement was not genuine
We address these matters in tum.
Submissions:
Alleged fraudulent signature.
We first reiterate our previous submission that the "information" that the statutory declaration of the sponsor dated 29 November 2018 and was not signed by her and was signed by the applicant has not been disclosed, contrary to s.359A of the Migration Act. In that respect we reiterate our submission that the validity of the s. 375A certificate is not conceded.
Second, Mr Dubecat has in excess of thirty years’ experience as a document examiner, had trained with and been employed by the NSW police, examined many thousands of documents and has given evidence in innumerable Court cases. He qualifies as an expert in this Tribunal, and in fact would do so in any Court in this country.
Mr Dubecat has identified the limitations of his analysis as being,
(a) That he has been unable to examine the originals of the documents concerned and had to rely on pdf copies which meant that certain types of examination could not be carried out. This precluded an unqualified opinion as to whether the writer of the signature on the sponsor's statutory declaration of 29 November 2018 is the author of the signature on other documents examined, and,
(b) The simplicity of the signatures.
Working within those limitations Mr Dubecat has examined the pdf copy of the signature on the statutory declaration of 29 November 2018 and pdf copies of signatures on what are, we would submit, undeniably documents signed by Ms Luo. These include her marriage certificate, passport, superannuation form, tax file number declaration, deed of financial agreement and application for divorce. After examining these signatures, he found similarities in nine characteristics thereof (para 7 of his report) and concluded that all signatures "could reasonably be taken to be the work of one writer" (para 6). He examined five hypotheses and after doing so concluded (para 14), that within the limitations he had expressed, the signature of Xi Luo on the statutory declaration of 29 November 2018 is "probably genuine".
We submit that Mr Dubecat's report indicates that his examination was conducted with extreme care and his conclusion flows directly and logically from that examination. It is the best evidence available. We further submit that comparative analysis of signatures and handwriting is a topic upon which expert evidence is required. In that respect, Kieffel J, as her Honour then was, said in Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation Limited [2002] FCA 30; (2002) 66 ALO 579, at [25];
The more flexible procedure provided for [i.e. in AAT proceedings] does not justify decisions made without a basis in evidence having probative force: Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 36 FLR 482, 492, referring to Consolidated Edison Co v National Labour Relations Board (1938) 305 US 197, 229; The King v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228, 256. The drawing of an inference without evidence is an error of law: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, 355-356; Repatriation Commission v Maley (1991) 24 ALO 43 (Full Court). Similarly, such error is shown when the Tribunal bases its conclusion on its own view of a matter which requires evidence. In Collector of Customs (Tasmania) v Flinders Island Community Association (1985) 60 ALR 717, 722 a Full Court of this Court held that it was unjustifiable, and therefore legally erroneous, for a Tribunal to base its conclusion upon its own understanding of traditional aboriginal concepts of community ownership and interests, in the absence of any evidence on the matter. (emphasis added).
Mr Dubecat's evidence is, so far as we are aware, the best evidence available to the Tribunal. In such circumstances we submit that it would be unreasonable in the legal sense for the Tribunal to prefer its lay opinion to that of Mr Dubecat.
The handwriting on the applicant's statutory declaration of 29 November 2018 is the same as that of the sponsor of the same date.
We are instructed by the applicant that both documents were indeed written by him. We are further instructed that he had asked Ms Luo when she returned from work one evening to make a statutory declaration in support of his permanent visa application, that she said that she was tired and that he should write one for her, and that she told him what to write and checked the final document.
Both statutory declarations were signed on 29 November 2018 before the same solicitor. That the same solicitor attests to have witnessed the signatures on both statutory declarations is significant evidence that those documents were signed by the declarants before her. For a solicitor to falsely witness a statutory declaration would at the very least amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct and may amount to professional misconduct resulting in a severe sanction. It is most unlikely that a solicitor would put him or herself in such a position.
Finally, on this part of the matter we are instructed that although the applicant's English is far from perfect it was good enough for him to draft the relevant statutory declarations.
Sponsor had twice withdrawn her sponsorship and retracted the withdrawals.
The applicant, Mr Chen has given evidence about the withdrawals and subsequent retractions of withdrawals at pars 14-17 inclusive of his most recent statutory declaration. There were plainly stresses upon the marriage, particularly about Mr Chen's earning capacity. Ms Luo also appears to be impulsive, that being a reasonable explanation for her withdrawing her sponsorship and retracting the withdrawals relatively soon afterwards.
That there were stresses upon a marriage is not unusual. Also, that one party is impulsive and sufficiently so to withdraw her sponsorship twice and then retract the withdrawals does not mean that the intention of the parties was other than that the relationship be genuine and continuing at the time when the subclass 801 visa application came to be considered. Indeed, that fact that the sponsorship withdrawals were retracted indicates, contrary to the inference drawn by the delegate, that Ms Luo was satisfied at the times of the retraction of the withdrawals that the relationship was genuine.
One of the Form 888 declarants were not known to the sponsor.

The supporting statutory declarations before the delegate were those of Jun Huang and Yicheng Cai. We have not been informed, again contrary to s.359A of the Migration Act, which of the declarants was allegedly not known to the applicant. But in any event, both have made recent affidavits affirming that they do know the applicant and did know the couple as a couple. There is no substance to the allegation that one of the declarants was not known to the applicant.
Further submission
We do not know the source of the information before the delegate and the Tribunal referred to above, and it does not appear that we will be told. However, if the source is Ms Luo, or a person or persons who support her, we would urge the Tribunal to be cautious. Marriage breakdown are emotional and often bring out the worst in people, a fact well known to any practitioner who has worked in Family Law. In that respect we would observe that extreme allegations are regularly made by one former spouse about the other. Unfortunately, such allegations are often based on prejudice and a wish for revenge rather than fact.
We do not know, but it is possible that such is the case here. We are obliged to raise this possibility on our client's behalf so that the Tribunal can canvass all relevant possibilities.
Consideration and findings as to whether there was relevant non-compliance
The Tribunal had issued an Invitation to Comment on the s.375A Certificate found on the Department file to the applicant’s representative. It has examined all the evidence before it particularly that contained in the above submission. The Tribunal has weighed this evidence against the substantial amount of confidential adverse evidence found on the Department file and protected from dissemination by the s.375A Certificate. The gist of the confidential information found on said s.375A Certificate supports the notion that the marriage between the parties was over. Further to that assessment, and as seen in the s.107 notice, there was an overarching belief (garnered from the adverse information) that the applicant (desperate to avoid refusal of his Subclass 801 permanent residency) then went ‘the extra mile’ by engaging in fraudulent conduct to ensure that (successful) outcome. The conduct which was alleged was to provide (as part of his visa application) a ‘bogus document’ being a Statutory Declaration affirming the viability and genuineness of their marriage and confirmed and signed by his sponsor.
The Tribunal has weighed up both streams of evidence but prefers the evidence of the applicant. This is because there is an established pattern of behaviour by the sponsor during the marriage which is remarkable in the opinion of the Tribunal. The sponsor has addressed her behaviour during the course of the marriage from his own perspective. However, their marital argy-bargy does not concern the Tribunal. What interests the Tribunal is ascertaining the truth. The ‘on-again/off-again’ withdrawals of sponsorship by the sponsor are a significant concern. The sponsor appears, throughout the time the parties were married, to have engaged in erratic conduct.
Withdrawal of sponsorship and reinstatement of same is not uncommon in Partner visa cases - from the Tribunal’s lengthy experience. Complete withdrawal is, of course, fatal to any Partner visa application. Yet, it is not uncommon to see a withdrawal of sponsorship and re-instatement of sponsorship following some marital ‘tiff’ or misunderstanding. Saying that, this case has been affected by two withdrawals by the sponsor early in their marriage followed by later re-instatement.
Not surprisingly it seems that the sponsor wished her marriage to continue - despite the various interludes created by misunderstanding and friction. In support of this observation the Tribunal finds it telling that the sponsor went to the effort of visiting a solicitor to confirm the validity of her relationship (pursuant to the regulatory considerations in reg.1.15A(3)) by Statutory Declaration. She even gave over her passport to be photocopied by the solicitor as evidence she was there in person - voluntarily. This behaviour (in the Tribunal’s opinion) is a firm indication she insisted her marriage was afoot and wanted it to succeed. Unfortunately, in the end, it did not. Importantly though, at that moment in time, and despite their earlier marital issues, the sponsor attested that she still had ‘a genuine and continuing relationship’ with the applicant and as required by s.5F of the Act.
In weighing up the different scenarios to evidence the truth, the Tribunal has considered the “she said/he said” marital dynamic found in this Partner case. On balance, the Tribunal finds more persuasive the fact that the sponsor did pro-actively approve the efficacy of her married relationship - via the submission of a legitimate and supportive Statutory Declaration. The Tribunal is not convinced, from the totality of the evidence, that there was fraudulent conduct by the applicant in the creation and dissemination of that document.
The Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence of both the witnessing solicitor and the document examiner that the sponsor fully countenanced and approved the Statutory Declaration in question. Also, the Tribunal is satisfied that she voluntarily attended the office of a solicitor to sign the document with her own signature. As proof of the professional conduct of the solicitor, that person had the professional foresight to take copies of the sponsor’s (and other declarants’) passports to confirm the integrity of the process. The applicant then took these signed documents immediately to his migration agent for submission to the Department.
The Tribunal finds that signature on the Statutory Declaration document was not a counterfeit one (pursuant to the definition in s.5 (1) of the Act). Furthermore, the statement was not obtained because of a false or misleading statement whether or not made knowingly. The applicant did not breach s.103 of the Act.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was no non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. It follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.
Michael Cooke
Senior 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.