Gulzari (Migration) - [2018] AATA 2340

Gulzari (Migration) [2018] AATA 2340 (23 May 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mrs Halima Gulzari
Mr Zulfiqar Gulzari
Ms Samiya Gulzari
Ms Aliya Gulzari
Ms Abida Gulzari
Master Waqar Gulzari
CASE NUMBER:  1622102
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/2856273 / OSF2010/008907
MEMBER:Stavros Georgiadis
DATE:23 May 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants.

Statement made on 23 May 2018 at 6:40pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Cancellation – Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa – Subclass 100 (Spouse) – Whether the applicant has supplied bogus documents – Whether the s. 107 notice issued is valid - Death certificates provided by the applicant – Where authorities of the applicant’s home country have advised that the documents are bogus – Where authorities did not provide reasons for their advice - Where the delegate substantially relied on the advice of the authorities - Sufficient particulars not given to applicant – Applicant denied reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse information – Decision set aside and substituted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 101, 103, 107, 108, 109, 119, 140, 375A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41
CASES
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
MIAC v Brar
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248
Salama v MIBP [2016] FCCA 540
Saleem v MRT [2004] FCA 234
Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93
SZEEM v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 27
Zhao v MIMA [2000] FCA 1235
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 Immigration to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa under section 109 of the Act on the basis that the visa holder did not comply with s.103 of subsection C of the Act as she presented bogus documents to the delegate assessing her Partner 100 visa application and the delegate considered that the grounds for cancelling the visa outweighed the reasons for not cancelling.
The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
For the purposes of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the only decision that is before the Tribunal is that with respect to the first named applicant (the applicant). The other visas were automatically cancelled as a consequence of that cancellation, not by a decision but by force of the operation of s.140(1) of the Act. As no decision was involved in the visa cancellation under s.140(1), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 27 April 2017 and 21 August 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s husband Mr Reza Hussain Gulzari, who is an Australian citizen. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hazaragi and English languages. Because of some difficulties in understanding the interpreter arranged for the hearing of 27 April 2017, the hearing was reconvened for 21 August 2017 and conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hazaragi, Dari and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their 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.
Section 107(1) sets out the requirements for a notice and provides:
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.
(d) visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.
Section 108 provides that 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.
Section 109(1) provides:
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.
The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994 as follows:
(a) the correct information;
(b) the content of the genuine document (if any);
(c) 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;
(d) the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred;
(e) the present circumstances of the visa holder;
(f) the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act;
(g) any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister;
(h) the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance;
(j) any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches;
(k) any contribution made by the holder to the community.
The factors specified in r.2.41 must be considered but 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 relevant Government policy as set out in the department’s Procedural Advice Manual PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’. This policy requires delegates to also have regard to matters such as whether the visa would have been granted if the correct information had been given, whether there are persons in Australia whose visa would, or may, be automatically cancelled under s.140 of the Act, and whether the visa cancellation may result in Australia breaching its international obligations.
While it is well established that civil concepts such as ‘onus’ and ‘standard of proof’ are generally inappropriate in the administrative decision-making, in cases where the existence of certain facts grounds the exercise of a statutory power, those facts must be established on the material available before the power can be exercised. Accordingly, the Tribunal as decision maker, must be satisfied about the existence of the facts before exercising the power and, in this respect, as decision-maker bears the ‘onus’, not the visa holder.[1]
[1] This is in contrast to the ‘responsibility’ of non-citizens making claims for protection to specify all particulars of his or her claim and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim (s 5AAA of the Act)
In cancellation cases such as this, the visa holder is to be invited to show that the ground does not exist, or if it does, to show cause why the discretion should not be exercised. However, this does not place any obligation on the visa holder to establish that the visa should not be cancelled.
The Federal Court in Zhao v MIMA observed:
The decision-maker, acting under s 116, must be satisfied of one or other of the matters set out in that section before the visa can be cancelled. That state of satisfaction is a real state of satisfaction which must be reached on a consideration of the available material. A visa cannot be cancelled simply because the visa holder has failed to show cause why it should not. … A visa cannot be cancelled because the decision-maker has identified a possible ground of cancellation which the visa holder has not been able to rebut.[2]
[2] [2000] FCA 1235 (French, Hill and Carr JJ, 1 September 2000) at [25] and [32].
Although that case was concerned with cancellation under s.119, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the Federal Court’s comments would be equally applicable to s.109.
The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and the principles stated in Briginshaw v Briginshaw[3] have no direct application in the context of administrative decision making. In deciding whether the ground for cancellation is made out, the Tribunal is cognisant of the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the consequences.[4] In the present case the cancellation of a permanent visa is against the background where the applicant has been residing in Australia with her husband and has a number of children also residing in Australia with resultant serious consequences in circumstances of cancellation of the visa.
[3] (1938) 60 CLR 336. In that case, Dixon J held at 362 that in civil matters, ‘the seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal [of fact]’.
[4] Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93 (Flick and Perry JJ) at [120]
The questions for determination are:
(1)Did the delegate reach the necessary state of mind to engage s.107?
(2)If so, was the notice valid?
(3)If the notice was valid and having regard to any response to the notice, was there non-compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice?
(4)If so, should the discretion to cancel be exercised, having regard to any response to the notice, the prescribed matters and any other relevant considerations?
The Tribunal has had regard to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of the visa issued to the applicant on 11 October 2016.
The NOICC relevantly, sets out (in part) at page 4:
... “From the above evidence I consider you did not comply with section 103 of subdivision C of the Act because you presented the delegate assessing your Partner visa application the following bogus documents:
•The Death certificates for your husband's parents.
These have been confirmed non-genuine by the Afghan authorities.”...
On 1 November 2016 the applicant’s registered migration agent responded to the NOICC on behalf of the applicants. This is discussed further below, where relevant.
Did the notice comply with the requirements in s.107?
The Tribunal considered in the first instance, the issue of whether the notice issued by the Minister’s delegate complied with s.107 of the Act. Section 107 is only engaged if the Minister or delegate considers that the visa holder has not complied with one of the provisions mentioned in s.107(1). It is only then that the Minister or delegate is entitled to give notice to the visa holder under s.107. Therefore, if a notice is to be given under s.107, the Minister or delegate must have reached a state of mind where they consider that the visa holder has not complied with one or more of the relevant provisions. It is not sufficient that the delegate considers that the visa holder ‘may have’ provided incorrect information.[5] However, there is no requirement that the notice must contain an assertion as to the requisite state of mind.[6]
[5] Zhong v MIAC (2008) 171 FCR 444 at [77].
[6] Zhong v MIAC (2008) 171 FCR 444 at [75].
Whether the Minister or delegate had reached the requisite state of mind is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of the evidence, which could include the terms of the s.107 notice itself (including whether a reference to ‘may have’ reflected the decision-maker’s state of mind or was simply a standard letter template), the information referred to in the notice, other information or communications recorded in the departmental file, and departmental guidelines for primary decision makers.[7]
[7] For example, PAM3 – Migration Act - –visa cancellation instructions - General visa cancellation powers (s109, s116, s128, s134B & s140) –s109 Cancellation– Issuing a s107 notice (re-issue date 21/8/16).
In the present case the delegate determined on 16 December 2016 that the applicant had breached s.103 of Subdivision C of the Act as she presented bogus documents to the department assessing her Partner visa application. The delegate determined that accordingly, grounds for cancellation existed under s.109 of the Act (page 6) and proceeded to cancel the visa after considering and weighing up the grounds for cancelling and being satisfied that these outweighed the grounds for not cancelling.
The bogus documents referred to by the delegate in reaching this conclusion include, (inter alia Taskeras and Passports), the death certificates of the parents of the applicant’s husband which were considered to be ‘not genuine’ (page 3). The delegate refers to advice from the Afghan Embassy of 19 October 2015 in this regard but relevantly, confirms (at page 7) in reference to the death certificates, that: “The Afghan embassy has not advised the Department the reasons why they determined the documents were non-genuine.” Notwithstanding this, the delegate proceeded to find the documents were ‘bogus documents’ as defined under the Act and Regulations.
The Tribunal places weight on the delegate’s consideration (at page 10) that: “The provision of these bogus documents in the visa application was fundamental to the assessment she and her children met all the requirements for the grant of the visa.” The fact that the children listed in the application are the applicant’s (and the sponsor’s) biological children was confirmed by independent DNA testing requested by the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepts that the decision not to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly on the delegate’s findings regarding bogus documents, including relevantly the aforementioned death certificates.
The Tribunal considers the s.107 notice is a critical step in the cancellation process as it provides, or should provide, the visa holder with an opportunity to show that the grounds for cancellation do not exist, or, if they do exist, to put forward reasons why the discretion to cancel should not be exercised. In light of the information that the death certificates assessed by the Afghan Embassy had not advised the Department the reasons why they determined the documents were non-genuine, the Tribunal has concerns with the sufficiency of the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) issued to the applicant on 11 October 2016 as no particulars for this view held by the Afghan Embassy were put to the applicant in the s.107 notice. The Tribunal accepts that the reference to bogus documents also relates to other documents such as Taskeras and passports forming the basis for the delegate’s finding (at page 3) that the applicant and her children were all born in Pakistan (and are therefore Pakistani citizens not Afghans) and thus not eligible to be issued with Afghan Taskeras. However, it is clear in the Tribunal’s view, that substantial reliance was placed on the ‘bogus’ death certificates by the delegate in view of the circumstances that these were fundamental to the assessment she and her children met all the requirements for the grant of the visa. The delegate states (at page 7) that significant weight is given to this evidence as “it comes from the relevant authorities [The Afghan Embassy] responsible for confirming such information.”
Country information supports a view that formal documentation in Afghanistan may be unreliable. The Afghanistan Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Country Strategic Plan 2016-2020 was commissioned by the World Health Office in Kabul, Afghanistan in response to a request from the Afghanistan Ministry of Public Health. Page 7 of that report sets out as follows:
... “There is little death registration and cause of death data is often not recorded accurately. Both private and public doctors can certify the cause of death. Deaths occurring outside the hospital can be certified by the community leader or a non-professional registrar and are not necessary for burial or the claiming of pension or heritage services. Verbal autopsy is not widely used. The International Classification of Disease is not used routinely in the recording of cause of death.” ... (Page 7)
- (Accessed 20/5/2018)
The Tribunal has also had regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report Afghanistan - 18 September 2017 which sets out at page 33 under the heading - PREVALENCE OF FRAUD:
“Document fraud is a major issue in Afghanistan. Because the process for obtaining some documents is decentralised to the provincial level, and because the documentation itself generally does not contain robust security features, the system is vulnerable to fraud. Genuine documents can be issued on the basis of false information, with supporting forms of documentation such as school, academic, or banking records easily forged. This is particularly problematic in the case of taskiras given they are the primary document used to obtain other forms of identification. There is a risk that genuine, but fraudulently obtained, taskiras can be used to obtain passports. As noted in (‘National Identity Cards (Taskira)’), the government is in the process of introducing a new version of the taskira with additional security features, which should help in mitigating the risk of fraud. However, there is likely to be a significant time lag between the introduction of the new taskira and its widespread implementation.” - Page 33 (at 5.27).
- (Accessed 20/5/2018)

The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that sufficiency of notification of the s.107 notice is to be tested by reference to the statutory purpose of the notice. That is, it must be sufficient to fairly inform the visa holder of the basis upon which cancellation is being considered so that the visa holder is adequately equipped to provide such relevant information as may be available and to make such submissions as may be open.[8] For example, if both paragraphs of s.101 are to be relied on, the notice would need to give particulars of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the possible breach of each of the paragraphs. It would not be enough to generically claim that the visa holder has breached a section of the Act without giving particulars of the facts and circumstances which are said to give rise to the possible breach of the particular provision.[9] Simply identifying the statutory provision not complied with would not be an adequate provision of particulars for s.107(1)(a).[10]
[8] Zhao v MIMA [2000] FCA 1235 (French, Hill and Carr JJ, 1 September 2000) at [25]. In that case the Court was considering the requirements of s.119 notifications for the purposes of Subdivision D cancellation but the principle would be equally applicable to s.107 notifications. The decision was cited with approval by the Federal Court in MIAC v Brar (2012) 201 FCR 240: see [57]-[58], a decision that was concerned with a s.107 notification.
[9] Zhong v MIAC (2008) 171 FCR 444 at [80].
[10] Saleem v MRT [2004] FCA 234 (Allsop J, 30 March 2004) at [43]-[44].
Although the delegate’s reasoning for accepting the death certificates as bogus documents is on the basis that ‘it comes from the relevant authorities responsible for confirming such information’, the country information discussed above suggests that such reliance may not be steadfast. In the absence of sufficient particulars being provided to the delegate (and consequently to the applicant) as to the reasons why the death certificates were considered by the Afghan authorities as non-genuine, the applicant is left to surmise and speculate as to the reasons for this. On this factor, the Tribunal has had regard to the response provided by the applicant on 1 November 2016 to the s.107 notice. Regarding the alleged bogus death certificates, the applicant submits that the information regarding their nationality was incorrect and that the Mirza Hussain referred to on the visa holder’s Pakistani National Identity Card is not her father-in-law, but the father of Fida Hussain who facilitated obtaining the fraudulent documents. The delegate states (at page 7) that there is ‘no evidence before me to support the visa holder’s claimed reasons for this assessment’ made against the background of the absence of any reasons provided for the view by the Afghan authorities of non-genuine death certificates.
The Tribunal has also had regard to the relevant case authorities that a minor defect in the content of a s.107 notification which does not go to the substance of the allegations or affect the visa holder’s capacity to respond to the allegations will not necessarily preclude valid cancellation under s.109. The Full Federal Court in MIAC v Brar[11] confirmed that a purposive approach must be taken, so that an error which is minor and insignificant in the context of the facts of a particular case and which does not go to the substance of the allegation of non-compliance will not deprive a decision maker of jurisdiction under ss.108 and 109. In that case the visa holder argued that where a bogus document was submitted as part of an online visa application (which was found by the Tribunal to be an ‘authorised system’), a s.107 notification which specified the non-compliance occurred when the document in question was presented to ‘an officer of the department’ could not support a valid exercise of power under ss.108 and 109. The Court characterised that error as minor and insignificant, noting that the s.107 notification provided adequate particulars of the allegation and the date on which it was submitted so that the visa holder would not have been under any misapprehension as to the occasion upon which it was said that he had failed to comply with s.103 of the Act.[12] In Salama v MIBP,[13] the Court dismissed the former visa holder’s argument that the s.107 notification did not comply with s.107(1)(c)(ii),[14] and held that even if there was a defect in the notification, it was trivial and insignificant, given there was no suggestion that the visa holder was denied any reasonable opportunity to respond in writing to concerns held about the Minister about possible non-compliance with the visa holder’s obligations.[15]
[11] (2012) 201 FCR 240, overturning Brar v MIAC [2011] FMCA 435 (Driver FM, 28 July 2011).
[12] (2012) 201 FCR 240 at [61]. See also Kang v MIAC [2013] FCA 711 (North J, 22 May 2013). In Kang, the Court accepted that the allegation of non-compliance could have been more clearly put in the s.107 notice. However, this was not fatal to the notice as the applicant was under no misapprehension about what the false or misleading statement was alleged to be.
[13] [2016] FCCA 540 (Judge Smith, 18 March 2016).
[14] Salama v MIBP [2016] FCCA 540 (Judge Smith, 18 March 2016) at [19]. The Court held that while the s.107 notification did not replicate the words of s.107(1)(c)(ii) (i.e. if the holder responds to the notice, the Minister will consider cancelling the visa when the response is given), the stipulation that the response had to be provided in writing within 14 calendar days and that the written response ‘will also be taken into account’ constituted an unequivocal statement that the Minister would consider cancellation if the applicant gave a response within the required period.
[15] Salama v MIBP [2016] FCCA 540 (Judge Smith, 18 March 2016) at [23].
In the context of the facts of this particular case discussed, the Tribunal in applying the aforementioned authorities’ has adopted the purposive approach regarding the s.107 notice. The Tribunal considers the lack of particulars for the view held by the Afghan Embassy regarding the non-genuine nature of the death certificates and the delegate’s clear reliance on this view and these documents on the basis that they were issued by the ‘relevant authorities’ amounts to a defect in the s.107 notice as it has not a) given sufficient particulars relating to the possible non‑compliance; and b) adequately allowed the holder to give the Minister a written response to the notice. The Tribunal finds this is not minor and insignificant, or trivial in the context of the facts of the case and goes to the substance of the allegation of non-compliance. In respect of the death certificates, the Tribunal considers the s.107 notice is not particularised sufficiently to fairly inform the visa holder of the full basis upon which cancellation is being considered so that the visa holder is adequately equipped to provide such relevant information in response. The Tribunal is therefore, not satisfied that the notice complies with the statutory requirements. These defects cannot be cured by the Tribunal (SZEEM v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 27).
The Tribunal has considered the information before it and has found that the notice purportedly issued under s.107 of the Act was not a valid notice. As a valid s.107 notice is a precondition to the exercise of the power under s.109, there was no power to cancel the visa. It follows that the delegate’s decision to cancel the visa must be set aside.
Given the above findings, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether there was non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice, or the discretion of whether the visa should be cancelled, noting the department issued a s.375A Certificate regarding disclosure of certain information put to the applicant at the hearing.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants.
Stavros Georgiadis
Member

ATTACHMENT – Relevant Extracts from the Migration Act 1958:
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.