Clack (Migration)

[2021] AATA 2942

Clack (Migration) [2021] AATA 2942 (4 June 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Leon Marian Clack

CASE NUMBER:  2017374

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/2357959

MEMBER:Jason Pennell

DATE:4 June 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 482 - Temporary Skill Shortage visa.

Statement made on 4 June 2021 at 4.42pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK) visa – Subclass 482 (Temporary Skill Shortage) – ground for cancellation – incorrect information in previous visa application – specified regional employment – consideration of discretion – visa grant based on incorrect information – immature and reckless at the time of making the application – applicant’s present circumstances – stable relationship with an Australian citizen – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 107, 107A, 109, 111
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 Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 482 - Temporary Skill Shortage visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had not complied with sections 101(b) and 107A of the Act. Specifically, the applicant provided incorrect answers about her work experience in her application for a second Working Holiday Visa (TZ-417) (subclass 417) (‘the visa’). The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 May 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. In addition, the Tribunal had regard to its objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, and quick. Accordingly, the hearing was held via conferencing facilities using the Microsoft Teams program. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments at the hearing.

4. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Mr Cameron Dolbel, the applicant’s partner, Mr Warren Lange, the applicant’s friend and Mrs Catherine Ryan, the applicant’s godmother.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by their legal representative.

6. 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

1. 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 Home Affairs (the Department) of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances.

2. 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.

3. 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?

1. 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 section 101(b) of the Act.

2. Section 101 of the Act states:

   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:

   (a) all questions on it are answered; and

   (b)no incorrect answers are given or provided.

3. Section 99 of the Act states:

   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.

4. Section 111 of the Act states that, to avoid doubt, sections 107, 108 and 109 apply whether the non-compliance was deliberate or inadvertent.

5. Section 107A of the Act states:

   Possible non-compliances in connection with a previous visa may be grounds for cancellation of current visa

   The possible non-compliances that:

   (a)  may be specified in a notice by the Minister under section 107 to a person who is the holder of a visa; and

(b)  if so specified, can constitute a ground for the cancellation of that visa under section 109;

include non-compliances that occurred at any time, including non-compliances in respect of any previous visa held by the person.

1. By a Notification of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) dated 15 September 2020 the Department informed the applicant that on 4 May 2017 she applied for the visa and as part of her electronic visa application form, she provided the following information:

   A.B.N - 29095413862

   Postcode - 5330

   Start date - 19 October 2016

   End Date - 28 February 2017

2. Based on the information provided by the applicant the Department granted the visa.

3. On 1 May 2019, the Department conducted a check with the business using A.B.N 29095413862, known as Agromillora Australia JV Pty. The company informed the Department that they had no record of the applicant having worked for them. A Departmental check conducted with Agromillora Australia JV Pty on 7 September 2020 confirmed that they had ceased operations on 1 March 2014, and they had no record of the applicant having worked for them.

4. The applicant provided her response to the NOICC on 29 September 2020, 01 October 2020 and 9 October 2020. By her statutory declaration dated 29 September 2020,[1] 7 October 2020[2] and her statutory declaration dated 21 May 2021[3] the applicant conceded that she had not performed the work as indicated in her visa application and as such did not comply with section 101(b) of the Act in the manner outlined in the NOICC.  

   [1]    Letter from Timpson Immigration Lawyers to the Department dated 29 September 2020; BCC20192357959, CLD2020/33498246, ID Doc 7926157

   [2]    Statutory Declaration by Leon Clack dated 7 October 2020

   [3]    Letter from Timpson Immigration Lawyers to the AAT dated 21 May 2021; AAT file 2017374  Doc ID No. 8451928.

5. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with section 101 (b) of the Act by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

Background

1. The applicant is a 26-year-old female from Ireland who first arrived in Australia on Working Holiday (Class TZ-417) Visa on 25 September 2016.

2. On 4 May 2017, the applicant was granted a further Working Holiday (Class TZ-417) Visa which was valid until 25 September 2018.  The second Working Holiday Visa was granted based on the applicant’s claims of having completed specified regional employment with Agromillora Australia JV Pty Ltd between 19 October 2016 to 28 February 2017.

3. The applicant later applied for a Temporary Skill Shortage (Class GK-482) Visa.  This visa was granted, being valid for a period of 2 years from 20 March 2019, based on the approved nomination obtained by the applicant’s sponsor.

4. Departmental checks were undertaken with Agromillora Australia JV Pty Ltd on 1 May 2019 to verify the employment claimed by the applicant.  As part of these checks, the Department was advised by Agromillora Australia JV Pty Ltd that they had no record of the applicant ever working with them, but that she may have been employed by them through their labour hire supplier, Agromillora Australia Pty Ltd.  Following further integrity checks undertaken by the Department on 7 September 2020, it was established that Agromillora Australia Pty Ltd ceased operations on 1 March 2014 and there was no evidence to demonstrate that the applicant had ever worked for them.

5. As a result of this information, the applicant was sent a NOICC[4] by email on 15 September 2020 inviting her to comment on the incorrect answers she provided in her second Working Holiday Visa application by listing employment with Agromillora Australia JV Pty Ltd between 19 October 2016 to 28 February 2017.  As a result of this incorrection information, the applicant’s 482 visa was at risk of cancellation under section 109 of the Act on the basis of non-compliance with sections 101(b) and 107A of the Act.

   [4] NOICC dated 15 September 2019, Department File BCC2019/2357959, Doc ID No. 7926150.  The NOICC was incorrectly dated 15 September 2019 due to an administrative error.  The correct date which should have appeared is 15 September 2020.

6. Through her migration agent, the applicant provided the following documents[5] in response to the NOICC:

   [5] Department File BCC2019/2357959, submissions received on 30 September 2020, 1 October 2020 and 9 October 2020

   (a)Legal submissions dated 29 September 2020

   (b)Applicant’s Statutory Declaration dated 29 September 2020

   (c)Form 956 Advice by a Registered Migration Agent/Exempt Person dated 29 September 2020

   (d)Signed reference from Georgia Capon, former General Manager (undated)

   (e)Signed reference from Emily Wood, applicant’s housemate (undated)

   (f)Residential Tenancies Authority Bond Lodgement Form 2 for joint lease between the applicant and Emily Wood (24 October 2019 – 22 April 2020)

   (g)General Tenancy Agreement for joint lease between the applicant and Emily Wood (01 May 2020 – 31 July 2020)

   (h)General Tenancy Agreement for joint lease between the applicant and Emily Wood (24 August 2020 to 31 May 2021)

   (i)Various electronic transfer receipts to Emily Wood for utilities, food and internet (between July - September 2020)

   (j)Personal Statement from the applicant’s former partner, Zidaan Iqbal Gutta, dated 28 June 2020

   (k)Reference letter from Airtrip, landlord for rental property jointly leased by the applicant and Zidaan Gutta between 16 June 2019 to 28 September 2019

   (l)Evidence of joint travel from Brisbane to Melbourne (29 November 2018) and return flight from Melbourne to Brisbane (1 December 2018) for the applicant and Zidaan Gutta

   (m)Accommodation reservation for Zidaan Gutta in Melbourne between 29 November 2018 - 1 December 2018

   (n)General Tenancy Agreement for joint lease between the applicant and former partner Antonio Erick De Souza Oliveira (17 August 2018 – 16 February 2019)

   (o)Residential Tenancies Authority Bond Lodgement confirmation dated 21 September 2018 for joint lease between the applicant and Antonio Erick De Souza Oliveira

   (p)Applicant’s Supplementary Statutory Declaration dated 7 October 2020

7. On 25 November 2020, the delegate found that the applicant had not complied with section 101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect information regarding her employment in the TZ-417 application and by operation of section 107A of the Act, the applicant’s 482 visa was cancelled under section 109 of the Act.

Submissions to the Tribunal

1. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s Notification letter and Record of Decision of whether to Cancel under section 109 of the Act, dated 25 November 2020.[6]

   [6] Tribunal Case 2017374, Doc ID 7903868 and 7903869

2. In addition, the applicant provided legal submissions dated 21 May 2021, together with the following supporting documentation[7]:

   [7] Tribunal Case 2017374, Doc ID 8451928

   (a)Applicant’s Statutory Declaration dated 21 May 2021

   (b)Further copy of Applicant’s Statutory Declaration dated 29 September 2020

   (c)Queensland Civil Partnership Certificate between the applicant and Cameron John Dolbel dated 21 December 2020

   (d)Residential Tenancies Authority Bond Lodgement (Form 2) for joint lease between the applicant and Cameron Dolbel (10/05/2021 – 29/11/2021)

   (e)General Tenancy Agreement for joint lease between the applicant and Cameron Dolbel (28/05/2021 – 29/11/2021)

   (f)General Tenancy Agreement between the applicant, Emily Elizabeth Wood and Cameron Dolbel (24/08/2020 – 31/05/2021)

   (g)Responsible Management of Licensed Venues-Licensee’s Course Certificate for the applicant, issued 16 October 2018

   (h)COVID Safe Work Training for Dining In Certificate for the applicant, issued 10 July 2020

   (i)Offer of Permanent Employment for the applicant, from 188 Edward Pty Ltd T/A Jumbo Thai Restaurant & Bar dated 4 May 2021

   (j)Reference from Maria Camila Rodriguez Beltran (undated), supported by Queensland Driver Licence

   (k)Reference from Franziska Dueppen (undated), supported by German Passport biodata page

   (l)Reference from Georgia Capon (undated), supported by Queensland Driver Licence

   (m)Reference from Paul Rush (undated), supported by UK Driving Licence

   (n)Reference from Warren Lange (undated)

   (o)Wasana Park Queensland Driver Licence

Should the visa be cancelled?

1. 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) of the Act. Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2) of the Act.

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

·        the correct information

·        the content of the genuine document (if any)

·        whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document

·        the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

·        the present circumstances of the visa holder

·        the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act

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

·        the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

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

·        any contribution made by the holder to the community

1. 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.

The correct information

1. As detailed above the correct information is that the applicant did not undertake the specified work at Agromillora Australia JV Pty or at their labour hire company Agromillora Australia Pty Ltd from 19 October 2016 to 28 February 2017. The applicant conceded that she did not complete the work as indicated in her visa application.

2. By providing the incorrect answers, the applicant has misled the Department in its assessment of granting the applicant the visa. Based on the information provided by the Department and the applicant’s own evidence the Tribunal finds that the applicant did not comply with section 101(b) of the Act.  The Tribunal places significant weight on the consideration in favour of cancelling the visa.

The content of the genuine document (if any)

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in relation to any determination as to the authenticity of any document in this matter. The Tribunal places no weight on this consideration in making its determination.  

Whether the decision to grant 482 was based wholly or partly on incorrect information or a bogus document

1. The visa provided the Department with incorrect information on her visa application in relation to her work history. The Tribunal finds that the Department’s decision to grant the visa was partly based on the incorrect answers provided by the applicant. It’s likely that the Department may have considered the visa application differently if the applicant had provided correct answers at the time of lodging her visa application. The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

Circumstances in which non-compliance occurred

1. The visa applied for by the applicant is eligible to people who have undertaken three months of specified work in a regional area of Australia while they held their first Working Holiday visa. The applicant did not undertake the work detailed in her application. In fact, it was her evidence that she had never been to South Australia where she claimed to have performed the work. Rather, during this period she travelled the coast of Queensland, working casually in a range of hospitality jobs.

2. The applicant had initially travelled to Australia from Ireland on a working holiday visa. Her evidence was that in Ireland she had a strained relationship with her parents and that she had just broken up with her long-term boyfriend. On her own evidence, she was immature, reckless, and impulsive.  Mrs Catherine Ryan evidence was that the applicant had a difficult time in Ireland with her parents. Her evidence was that they had separated when the applicant was young and that she had strained relationship with them, particularly her father. She stated that the applicant had been affected by the breakdown of her relationship with her boyfriend in Ireland in circumstances where she had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma cancer.[8] Her evidence was that the applicant was timid and immature when she left Ireland but had grown in maturity and confidence during her time in Australia.

   [8] Applicants statutory declaration dated 29 September 2020 @ [7]

3. At the time of making the application for the visa she was 22 years of age, working as a bar attendant at the ‘Down Under Bar’ in Brisbane and living in the Nomads Backers located in Roma Street Brisbane. Her statutory declaration dated 29 September 2020 indicates that she was leading a transitory life lifestyle, working casually and generally mixing with a crowd that caused her to make poor decisions.

4. Her evidence to the Tribunal was that she was encouraged by other residents at the Backpackers accommodation to make the application for the visa and supplied her the false information to include in her application. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that she had no knowledge of Agromillora Australia JV Pty and has never been to South Australia where the business is based. The applicant’s evidence was she foolishly and recklessly included the information in the application believing that she was unlikely to remain in Australia. The applicant’s evidence was that it was an immature and reckless decision made without any consideration as to the consequences it may have for her in the future.

1. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was immature and reckless at the time of making the application. While this in and of itself is no reason for having made the false information to the Department, the Tribunal acknowledges that in circumstances where the applicant is leading a transitory lifestyle and believes that she will return to her home country in the near future, she would be influenced by others in providing the false information to the Department in her visa application. The Tribunal places some weight on the consideration in the applicant’s favour.

Applicant’s present circumstances

1. The applicant’s evidence she was subsequently employed within the hospitality industry by Urban Purveyors Group Pty Ltd (Urban). Urban is a corporation that is in the business of owning and operating various  restaurants and bars. The applicant was employed to work for one of its bar/restaurant known as Winhaus. A sports bars specialising in serving chicken wings and different types of beer.  The applicant was promoted to the position of manager at its venue in and around the Brisbane CBD. 

2. The applicant is in a stable relationship with Mr Cameron Dolbel. Mr Dolbel is an Australian citizen. They currently live together in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane, Queensland and have registered their relationship as a Civil Partnership on 21 December 2020.[9] 

   [9]    Queensland Civil Partnership Certificate dated 21 December 2020; AAT file No 2017374 Doc ID 8451928

3. The applicant visa has now expired, and the applicant is currently on a Bridging visa pending the decision of this application.  The applicant and Mr Dolbel evidence to the Tribunal was that it is their intention to apply for a partner visa together to allow the applicant to remain in Australia. While they understand they would be able to apply for a partner visa, their evidence to the Tribunal was that the outcome of this decision was important for the purpose of making their partner visa application.

4. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and Mr Dolbel are in a stable relationship and gives this some consideration in the applicant’s favour.

Applicant’s subsequent behaviour concerning their obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Migration Act

1. The applicant provided the same incorrect information in relation to her application for a Temporary Skill Shortage visa application. The applicant brought this fact to the attention of the Department pursuant to section 105 of the Act in her submissions to the Department. This does demonstrate a deliberate attempt to mislead the Department by continuing to provide the incorrect information. However, while this does represent a continuation of the false information provided to the Department. The Tribunal notes that it is a reproduction of the information provided in the applicant’s visa. As such the Tribunal gives this consideration some weight against the applicant. 

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

1. There is no information before the Tribunal that indicates any other instances of non-compliance by the applicant.

The time that has elapsed since non-compliance

1. The non-compliance occurred on 4 May 2017 when the applicant was aged 22 years old. Since that time the applicant has been employed by Urban and shown herself to be a reliable and valued employee. She has made strong friendships in Australia and developed a meaningful relationship with Mr Dolbel.  While the applicant did not make any attempt to notify the Department of the incorrect information prior to her response to the NOICC, this is perhaps understandable in circumstances where she was on a fixed term visa and it was prior to her relationship with Mr Dolbel.  The Tribunal does not give this consideration any weight for or against the applicant.

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

1. There is no information before the Tribunal that indicates the applicant has breached the law since the non-compliance. The Tribunal gives this consideration little weight in favour of the applicant. 

Applicant’s contribution to the community

1. The applicant did not provide any information which indicated that she has contributed to community in Australia. The applicant’s evidence is that she has gained skills within the hospitality industry. The Tribunal places no weight on this consideration in favour of the applicant.   

Consequential cancellations under s.140

1. There is no evidence that any person visa would, or may, be consequently cancelled under section 140 of the Act. The Tribunal gives no weight to this consideration for or against the applicant.

Any breach of international obligations Australia may have because of the applicant’s visa being cancelled

1. The Tribunal has considered if the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would breach the Convention of Rights of the Child (CRC) which states that the best interest of the child must be the primary consideration in making decisions that affect them and that a decision maker considering cancelling a visa must turn their mind to the consequences of cancellation of the visa, especially if the child will be separated for the family unit.  

2. There is no information before the Tribunal which indicates that cancellation of the applicant’s visa would result in any breach of Australia’s international obligations, nor has the applicant advised the Tribunal of any concerns she may have in relation to Australia international obligations. The Tribunal places no weight in relation to the consideration for or against the applicant.

Mandatory legal consequences.

1. If the visa is cancelled, the applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen and will be liable for detention under s.189 of the Act and removal under s.198 of the Act if she does not voluntarily depart Australia.

2. In addition, the applicant will be subject to s.48 of the Act which means that she will have limited options when applying for a further visa in Australia. The applicant will be subject to Public Interest Criterion 4013 because of cancellation. However, the applicant will be entitled to apply for Bridging E Visa to remain lawfully in Australia while finalising departure arrangements.

3. The Tribunal gives some weight to this consideration in the applicant’s favour.

Other relevant considerations

1. There are no other relevant matters that require consideration.

2. 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. However, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.

3. The applicant should know that the Tribunal takes the breach of section 101 of the Act very seriously and as such has only marginally made this decision in the applicant’s favour. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has developed over the time since the non-compliance having held a position of responsibility and developed a relationship with Mr Dolbel. The fact that the applicant has provided the false information when she was young, immature and under the influence of others are factors that the Tribunal has given considerable weight in making the decision to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision not to cancel the applicant’s visa.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 482 - Temporary Skill Shortage visa.

Jason Pennell
Senior Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)

1. Interpretation

   (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.

2. Interpretation

   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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Visa 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.

7. Notice 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.

8. Decision 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.

9. Cancellation 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.