EL Hossni (Migration)

EL Hossni (Migration) [2020] AATA 3259 (5 May 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Amer EL Hossni
CASE NUMBER:  1908958
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/24904
MEMBER:Nicholas McGowan
DATE:5 May 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.

Statement made on 05 May 2020 at 11:00am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa – incorrect information – did not advise department of divorce from sponsor before visa grant – subsequent sponsorship of another person – credibility issues – applicant claims marriage annulled by father and uncle – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 101(b), 104
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before this tribunal in a public hearing held on Tuesday 3 September 2019 to give evidence and present argument(s). Two witnesses attended. Only one of the witnesses gave oral evidence during the public hearing. The applicant’s agent and barrister elected for the second witness to provide any evidence in written form, post-hearing. The public hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent and a barrister. Members of the public were present. No objection to their presence was raised.
BACKGROUND
·     On 27 October 2010 the applicant made an application for a Prospective Marriage subclass 300 visa sponsored by his partner Ms Halime Hosni born 2 November 1992 (also known as Halime El Hossni).
·     The applicant was granted the 300 subclass visa on 2 March 2012, and first arrived in Australia from Lebanon on 17 March 2012. The applicant married his sponsor (Ms Hosni) on 19 April 2012.
·     On 6 August 2012 the applicant made an application for Combined Partner Subclass 820/801 visas sponsored by Ms Hosni. On 22 October 2014 the applicant was granted his permanent 801 visa.
·     On 15 September 2017 the applicant sponsored a partner Subclass 309 visa application on the basis of his new marriage to Ms Abir Al Ghoul born 19 March 1996 in Lebanon.
LAW, 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.
The question of the validity of the Notice was raised at this tribunal’s public hearing held in Melbourne on 3 September 2019, and the applicant’s agent or barrister invited to make submission in that regard. The validity of the Notice has not been disputed.
Given the above and having considered the particulars and legal requirements, this 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 this 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) and section 104.
Non-compliance is claimed to have occurred in regards to section 101(b) in the following respects:
In a statutory declaration provided to the Minister’s delegate by the applicant (dated 24 June 2014), the applicant stated he had a mutual commitment to a shared life as husband and wife with his sponsor; stated their relationship was ongoing; and stated they lived together (for 21 months).
On 15 September 2017, in an application for a separate partner visa application (lodged by Ms Abir Al Ghoul (born 19 March 1996)) and sponsored by the applicant, a Lebanese certificate of Marriage Annulment executed on 9 May 2013 in Tripoli was provided (in support of this partner visa application). In other words, the applicant and his new partner (not his sponsor) were relying on that Marriage Annulment document (in-part) to satisfy the Minister’s delegate that the applicant was free (from being married to his sponsor) and therefore satisfy part of the criteria for the grant of the new partner visa application.
Non-compliance is also claimed to have occurred in regards to section 104 in the following respects:
As the Minister’s delegate found the Annulment certificate indicated the breakdown of the applicant and his sponsor’s (first wife’s) relationship (on16 April 2013) and his permanent partner visa was issued some18 months later on 22 October 2014, the applicant was required to notify the Minister’s delegate to reflect his true circumstances (in other words to update his answers of questions 71 and 77 of Form 47SP lodged on 6 August 2012) as part of his combined Partner subclass 820/801 visas sponsored by Ms Halime Hosni born 2 November 1992. Simply put, the applicant failed to notify the Minister’s delegate of a relevant change in circumstances, which rendered answers in his application for the Partner visas incorrect, and therefore made his visa liable for consideration (even cancellation).
In regards to both of the above incidences of non-compliance (101(b) and 104), the applicant claims he did not divorce his sponsor as evidenced by the Marriage Annulment certificate dated 9 May 2103. The applicant claims he was living with his sponsor in Australia at the time and could not have entered into such action. The applicant claims his father and uncle had a disagreement at that time and they lodged the divorce fraudulently. The applicant had claimed to the Minister’s delegate previously that he had not given permission for his father or uncle to take such action. The applicant claims neither he nor his last wife (the sponsor) knew of the divorce proceedings in Tripoli, even though they lived in the house owned by the uncle who he claims was a party to the ‘fraudulent’ annulment of the marriage.
This tribunal discussed the above and considered each aspect carefully during its public hearing held in Melbourne on 3 September 2019 (the audio for which has been made available to the department of immigration for their information).
The applicant’s claim that he was living in Australia and could not have undertaken the divorce in Lebanon is not accepted by this tribunal because he is not required to be in Lebanon to do so. This tribunal discussed the ‘proxy’ possibility with the applicant at the public hearing. The Minister’s delegate’s decision (which the applicant provided to this tribunal) made it plain that a proxy can be used for such an annulment. The consideration then arises, did anybody act on the applicant’s behalf. This tribunal notes the applicant has claimed previously to the Minister’s delegate that neither his father nor uncle had a power of attorney to act on his, or his ex-wife’s behalf.
During this tribunal’s public hearing the applicant’s witness, his uncle’s wife, gave oral evidence that the applicant’s father had annulled the marriage (that is, only the applicant’s father and not her husband). This tribunal enquired why she believed only the applicant’s father took this action when the consistent claim previously had been the applicant’s father and uncle (her husband) had taken action to annul the marriage between their respective children. The witness declined the opportunity to provide further evidence and appeared to this tribunal to be more contemplative and reflect than her initial forthcoming approach only minutes prior. This tribunal also enquired why the uncle himself had not appeared before this tribunal, given his role in the claimed fraudulent annulment. The applicant’s witness told this tribunal her husband (the uncle of the applicant) was unwell and had to take children to school. Given his central role in the applicant’s claim, it is somewhat puzzling that the uncle, was not present to support the applicant although his wife was. Upon further discussion of these claims, the applicant told this tribunal his father had a power of attorney for him, and could have performed such an annulment. This is the first time the applicant has made such a claim, and is in direct contrast with all his previous evidence to the Minister’s delegate (previously). This caused this tribunal to further question why such evidence had not been forthcoming earlier, and why supportive documentary evidence had not accompanied such a claim. The applicant told this tribunal he couldn’t recall he’d even given his father power of attorney until well after the marriage annulment, and to this day couldn’t say where the documents were, when any authority was given, or any specificity around the dates that might relate to such a ‘power’ having been given. The changing nature of the applicant’s evidence troubles this tribunal. The now significant inconsistencies in the applicant’s claims undermine the evidence provided by the applicant and show preparedness by him to alter or completely change his own evidence, including contradicting past accounts. In such circumstances this tribunal cannot reasonably rely upon such unreliable evidence because it lacks consistency and credibility when given in such a contradictory manner. Accordingly, this tribunal has not been satisfied that the claims the father and uncle had undertaken the ‘annulment’ action are genuine, and finds it likely based on the evidence available, that the applicant knew and agreed to such actions on his behalf.
This tribunal discussed with the applicant the fact that given the claimed feud between his father and uncle was so serious and severe it caused them to annul their children’s marriage, that act seemed at odds with the claims he makes that he and his sponsor continued to live in the uncle’s home here in Australia and yet they knew nothing of their parents actions at that time. It seems to this tribunal that such actions are almost, if not, entirely self-defeating if the people involved are not told and have no knowledge of them. The applicant told this tribunal it was because of the culture he came from, he also referenced the importance of his father’s relationship with his first born son as opposed to those born later (in his culture), and his father’s right to act on their behalf unilaterally (culturally) and claimed he and his sponsor were somehow, just the “children” and their parents dispute - even though it caused the annulment of their marriage - was not brought to their attention. This tribunal discussed with the applicant the department of immigration notations in the cancellation notification no parent could, without authority, act on behalf of their children in Lebanon once they’ve obtained the age of 18.
Ultimately, the applicant’s claim he knew nothing about the annulment is implausible in all the circumstances detailed above. It is implausible because the claimed actions by the parents are so entirely inconsistent (and seemingly meaningless) should the applicant and his wife not have been informed (even immediately after, if not during) particularly given the applicant’s claim is that the feud between the father and uncle caused them to annul their marriage. In other words what purposes does such an annulment serve if the parties to that marriage have no idea the actions ever took place. In light of the applicant’s own changed evidence that he gave his father ‘some’ power of attorney, it is more likely the applicant knew and permitted the annulment of his marriage by his father (including the participation of his uncle) as part of a broader plan or agreement to achieve a specific migration outcome (including for the reasons and findings discussed immediately below).
The applicant has now provided this tribunal with a third piece of evidence of their divorce (that is, between the applicant and his sponsor). This evidence was not provided to the department of immigration previously. This evidence takes the form of a letter dated 28 August 2019 from the Minister of Religion Sheikh Mohamad Abou Eid General Secretary of the United Imams and Dauaat of Victoria wherein he states he completed the religious divorce of the applicant and his sponsor on 1 April 2012. This tribunal made clear to the applicant it would be useful to this review to obtain a copy of any of the actual documentation from the divorce performed by the Imam as none has been provided to date. This tribunal queried why neither this ‘event’ and/or corresponding document had not been declared earlier to the immigration department, as it is distinctly different information from that provided by the applicant up until this review. Until this review the applicant has maintained he’d been divorced in Australia (only) on 7 April 2016. The applicant told this tribunal that his previous migration agent had told him not to include the Australian religious divorce documentation with the visa application he had sponsored. Further, the applicant told this tribunal that he took the request for divorce documentation in Australia to relate to his formal Government of Australia divorce, and not his religious divorce. This tribunal does not accept these explanations as plausible in the circumstances; moreover, it is a core responsibility of the applicant to provide relevant information as he is required to under the Act. It is clear to this tribunal that the applicant was prepared to provide for his subsequent partner visa applications an annulment certificate, which he believed fraudulently obtained (at one point), but which served his purposes to act as a sponsor for his new wife. This action by him, though he places responsibility for this on his past agent, indicates to this tribunal a preparedness by the applicant prioritise his need to obtain any migration outcome over and above the requirement(s) to provide truthful evidence. As such this causes this tribunal to seriously doubt the applicant’s claims in regards to his having no knowledge of the marriage annulment.
In regards to the above this tribunal notes the applicant provided to the Minister’s delegate previously a written ‘confession’ from his father (Jihad El Hossni) claiming he submitted the divorce without is son’s knowledge, and another from the Mayor of Tabbaneh supporting that claim. As the father has a strong interest in serving his son’s best interests presently, this tribunal cannot be certain of the reliability of the letter and its claims, particularly when contrasted with the applicant’s own (newer) oral evidence that he gave his father power to act on his behalf. For these reasons, this tribunal places little persuasive weight on the above evidence. In addition, the advice received from the department of immigration (as outlined in the applicant’s cancellation decision) is that such a letter from a mayor can easily be obtain through favour, association, and friendship in Lebanon. It follows logically that given all the other concerns surrounding the applicant’s claim, such a letter carries little weight in the circumstances outlined above.
For these reasons, this tribunal finds:
(a) The evidence of the marriage annulment and the implausibility of the reasons given by the applicant has satisfied this tribunal that the applicant’s relationship with his sponsor Halime had broken down as his divorce was authorised by the Sunni Religious Court of Tripoli on 16 April 2013 and the applicant provided incorrect information in association with his statutory declaration dated 24 June 2014 as part of his partner visa application. It follows the applicant has not complied with section 101(b) of the Act.
(b) As the applicant did not notify the Minister that his relationship with his sponsor had broken down prior to the grant of his partner visa on 22 October 2014 this failure rendered his response to answers in his partner visa application lodged 6 August 2012 incorrect in the circumstances. It follows the applicant has not complied with section 104 of the Act.
Accordingly, this tribunal find there was non-compliance with both sections 1010(b) and 104 by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.
Should the visa be cancelled?
As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).
In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations. Briefly, they are:
· the correct information
The applicant’s relationship with his sponsor had broken down and he divorced her in Tripoli on 16 April 2013. The applicant claims he was unaware of this, and that his father and uncle acted without consent. As such action by either parent would not be possible without the applicant’s consent, and given the applicant now concedes his father had power of attorney (although the period is unclear) the overwhelming evidence is that the marriage annulment could not have plausibly occurred without the knowledge of the applicant. The applicant’s claims he (and his sponsor) did not know
· the content of the genuine document (if any)
There is no information before this tribunal that the applicant has submitted any non-genuine document.
· 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 Minister’s delegate’s decision to grant the applicant’s previous partner visa was based on incorrect information in-part because the applicant had not updated his application to reflect his marriage annulment from his sponsor prior.
· the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred
The applicant claims the non-compliance did not occur and that the marriage annulment was entered into by his father and uncle without his knowledge though indicates (a claim only made to this tribunal since this tribunal’s public hearing) that his father’s may (or did) have power of attorney (but cannot recall any details of that power). The genuineness of the Lebanese annulment certificate is not contested by the applicant. The information available to the Minister is that in Lebanon, fathers of adults (over 18) cannot apply on behalf of their children unless they have been given a power of attorney. The applicants previous claims that none had been given, now runs counter to his new claim that he had given his father one, though he maintains he did not know his father (apparently) used it. This tribunal finds it likely the applicant has reconsidered his earlier claims because they lacked plausibility and now makes this new claim to add greater credibility to the claim he knew nothing of the annulment. This tribunal does not find the applicant’s claims in regard to not knowing about his annulment credible.
· the present circumstances of the visa holder

The applicant has been residing in Australia since 17 March 2012. The applicant is employed, and I accept has likely made friendships and social connections here. If the applicant’s visa is cancelled a degree of emotional and financial hardship can be expected, though given his wife and daughter, parents and some of his sibling live in Lebanon, it is also likely the applicant will benefit from the emotional support they could provide him.
· the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act
This tribunal is not aware of any behaviour which may bring into consideration the of the applicant’s obligations above.
· any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister
This tribunal is not aware of instances of non-compliance other than those outlined in this decision. As this is a minimum expectation of any person in Australia, his aspect is given little weight.
· the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance
The non-compliance occurred on 3 July 2014, consistent with the reasons outlined above. The applicant had ample opportunity to advise the Minister of his changed circumstances and only did so when he perceived a migration benefit could be arrived at in his new partner application. Accordingly, no weight in the applicant’s favour.
· any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches
There is no information before this tribunal which indicates breaches of the law since the non-compliance. No weight has been given to this consideration as good behaviour is expected as a societal norm.
· any contribution made by the holder to the community.
The applicant has provided evidence to this tribunal that he works and participates more broadly in the community, including through his religious-related activities (education, sports and worship – as detailed at folios 42-43 of this tribunal’s file). Some, though little weight, has been given in favour of the applicant.
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.
This tribunal’s assessment of the applicant’s responses also includes consideration of the following additional matters:
There are no dependent visa holders in this matter, hence, should the applicant’s visa be cancelled there is no information before this tribunal that any other cancellations would flow. As such this tribunal gives this aspect no weight in the applicant’s favour.
As the applicant is a citizen of Lebanon and has voluntarily returned on multiple occasions there is no evidence before this tribunal that cancellation of the applicant’s visa would impact Australia’s international obligations, including non-refoulement. As such this tribunal gives this aspect no weight in the applicant’s favour.
Should the applicant’s visa be cancelled he would become an unlawful non-citizen and could be detained under section 189 and removed under section 198 of the Act if he chooses not to voluntary depart Australia. The applicant would also be subject, in such circumstances, to section 48 of the Act which may prevent him from applying for certain visas while in Australia and may be affected by ‘public interest criteria 4013’ which places a limit on the grant of further temporary visas for a specified period. Further, the applicant was nominated as the sponsor on partner visa application for his current spouse. If the applicant’s visa is cancelled, the application for partner visa would be subject to eligibility re-assessment and could be refused. As such this tribunal gives this aspect no weight in the applicant’s favour.
Any other relevant matters
The applicant has been given (post-hearing) significant additional time to make any further submission(s) and has provide additional evidence. Two (2) letters, one (1) from the applicant’s Minister of Religion (found at folio 61), and a second (2) letter (found at folio 66) from Jihad Hosni, have each been received and taken into considerations as detailed above.
One (1) letter (found at folio 61 reverse-side) from the Republic of Lebanon Representative of Victoria was received but as it is not translated into English (as is required). Its content are indecipherable. As such this tribunal gives this aspect no weight in the applicant’s favour.
A letter from psychologist Fares Abdulwahab (found at folio 60) has also been submitted and considered. That letter details a single meeting with the applicant and recalls the migration history of the applicant based on the verbal say so of the applicant himself. It is not clear what treatment, if any, the applicant sought from this psychologist, but more importantly the psychologist himself does not detail any treatment offered or recommended, or if any was even given. As such this tribunal gives this aspect no weight in the applicant’s favour.
Findings
The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa.
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.
104Changes in circumstances to be notified
(1)If circumstances change so that an answer to a question on a non‑citizen’s application form or an answer under this section is incorrect in the new circumstances, he or she must, as soon as practicable, inform an officer in writing of the new circumstances and of the correct answer in them.
(2)If the applicant is in Australia at the time the visa is granted, subsection (1) only applies to changes in circumstance before the visa is granted.
(3)If the applicant is outside Australia at the time the visa is granted, subsection (1) only applies to changes in circumstances after the application and before the applicant is immigration cleared.
(4)Subsection (1) applies despite the grant of any visa.
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.

[2020] AATA 3259

5 May 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction

Remedies