IMRAN (Migration)

[2017] AATA 2302

IMRAN (Migration) [2017] AATA 2302 (16 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr MUHAMMAD IMRAN
Mrs MEHWISH
Master MUHAMMAD HUZAIFA
Master ABDUL-AZIZ IMRAN

CASE NUMBER:  1705139

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1598833

MEMBER:John Cipolla

DATE:16 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants.

Statement made on 16 November 2017 at 2:57pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Cancellation – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) – Providing incorrect information – Employment history – Relevant work 20 years previously – Veracity of employment references – Bank statement confirming salary payments – Pakistani taxation records

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 97-101, 103, 107, 109, 140, 359A

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that in his application for a Subclass 457 visa the applicant provided evidence of work experience with Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd noting that he had worked as an Assistant Accountant from July 1992 to July 2000. Integrity checks were conducted by the Departments overseas post in Pakistan and a representative from Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd was contacted and the person spoken to advised they had no record of the applicant being employed with them. This led the Department of Immigration to conclude that the applicant did not complete this period of work experience and that the information provided to the Department in his curriculum vitae as part of his Subclass 457 visa application was incorrect and in fact constituted a bogus document.

3. The applicant was invited by the Department to comment on the prospective grounds for cancellation of his Subclass 457 visa.  In response the applicant provided correspondence from Nasir Sharif the manager of Human Resources at Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd who confirmed that the applicant had worked with the company as an Assistant Accountant in the Accounts Department but it was more than 10 years since the applicant had left the organisation and they were unable to verify the exact period of the applicant’s employment. The delegate proceeded to find that the integrity checks conducted by the Departmental official offshore carried greater weight than the counter evidence provided by the applicant. The delegate when considering the exercise of discretion, namely whether or not the visa should be cancelled, concluded that the applicant was not employed by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd for the claimed period between July 1992 in July 2000 and thus he provided incorrect information with regard to his 457 visa application. With regard to the additional discretionary considerations the delegate concluded that the applicant’s visa should be cancelled.

4. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

5. 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.

6. The primary visa applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) appeared before the Tribunal on 1 September 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s brother Mr Muhammad Ayaz.  The Tribunal attempted to contact 2 additional witnesses in Pakistan by telephone but multiple attempts to reach the numbers provided were unsuccessful.

7. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent who attended the Tribunal hearing.

8. 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

9. The Tribunal received a pre-hearing submission from the applicant’s representative dated 28 August 2017 which it has duly considered. The submission makes reference to the evidence that was used to ground the cancellation of the applicant’s visa on the basis that the applicant had provided incorrect information and a bogus document to the Department of immigration with regard to the processing of his subclass 457 visa. The submission notes that the verification checks undertaken by a Departmental officer in Islamabad pertained to a conversation that he had with an employee of the business, Gul Ahmed, in an attempt to ascertain whether the applicant had worked in the business between 1994 and 2000. The submission notes that this enquiry related to employment that commenced 22 years ago and was completed 16 years ago and questions the reliability of the evidence provided by the employee of the business.  The submission makes reference to a statement from Mr Nasir Sharif from Gul Ahmed and makes reference to the problems verifying the applicant’s employment because it occurred 16 years ago. In conclusion the submission notes that having regard to all the facts and evidence there was no reliable evidence that the applicant had made a full statement with regard to him having been employed by Gul Ahmed.

10. At the review hearing the Tribunal explained in detail the issues in review and the merits review process. The Tribunal noted in its opening comments that a finding had been made by the Department of Immigration that the applicants 457 visa had been granted to him on the basis of the provision of false evidence and it brought into question the applicant’s credibility. 

11. The applicant gave his personal details to the Tribunal and advised that he was born in Pakistan.

12. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his education history. The applicant stated that he finished his secondary high school certificate in 1990 and his higher education certificate in 1992. The Tribunal asked the applicant about post-high school study. The applicant advised that he enrolled in a Bachelor of Commerce in 1992 and that he only completed 2 subjects in 1993 and discontinued his studies at that point in time later returning to them.

13. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his work history. The applicant advised that he worked for Gul Ahmed from July 1992 until July 2000. The applicant advised that in 2002 he completed his Bachelor of Commerce degree which was conferred in approximately 2003.

14. The Tribunal made reference to the documents provided by the applicant from the University of Karachi. The Tribunal noted that it appeared based on these documents the applicant had scored less than 50/100 in most subjects completed. The applicant advised the Tribunal the pass mark in Pakistan was 33/100. The Tribunal asked the applicant if the documents from the University of Karachi were sent to the University for verification they would confirm the applicant’s attendance and completion of a Bachelor of Commerce and the applicant advised that they would.

15. The Tribunal made reference to the applicant’s employment at Gul Ahmed from 1992 to 2000 a period of 8 years and asked the applicant for the address of the business premises. The applicant advised that the business premises were located in the Landhi which was an industrial area of Karachi. The Tribunal asked the applicant who the manager of the textile business was at the time of his employment and he advised it was Masqood Samah Khan.  The Tribunal asked the applicant about his duties in the business and he advised he was involved in bookkeeping maintenance of a manual cashbook and the distribution of petty cash in the initial phase of his employment. He advised that from 1995 he worked as a computer operator undertaking bookkeeping, recording sales and purchases, accounts payable and accrued expenses. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether the business was a large concern and the applicant advised there were approximately 6000 to 7000 employees of the business. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the business model and he advised that the business was involved in the manufacture of cloths, bedsheets and curtains using cotton and that the company had been around for about 50 to 60 years. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether the company had any overseas subsidiaries and he advised they had a subsidiary in Dubai and the United Kingdom and they previously had a subsidiary in Germany which no longer existed.

16. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he obtained the reference document from Gul Ahmed that he submitted with his subclass 457 visa application. The applicant stated that when you leave employment in Pakistan they give you an experience certificate. The Tribunal made reference to the document from Gul Ahmed and noted that the reference did not provide any details about the applicant’s experience apart from noting the time that the applicant had worked in the business as an employee and that the organisation found the applicant to be efficient, hard-working, and loyal. The applicant was invited to comment on this observation and the applicant stated that in Pakistan businesses only provide an experience document and if needed more than that you could ring the manager to obtain further detail. The Tribunal once again made reference to the document in question and advised that it was unable to decipher the signature on the document and enquired how you would be able to contact an individual with the business to verify the applicant’s experience. The applicant stated that it was not policy to do this.

17. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he did from July 2000 to January 2003 as there was a gap in the references that he provided to the Department of Immigration over this period. The applicant stated that he had a small business where he would sell excess stock such as bed-sheets, T-shirts and towels at local markets and that he sold at about 3 to 4 markets.

18. The Tribunal made reference to the reference provided from K A Impex who employed the applicant as a Marketing Assistant from January 2003 until December 2009. The Tribunal asked the applicant what the address of this business was and the applicant stated it was a business located in North Nazimahad Karachi and the applicant confirmed that he worked there for 7 years between January 2003 and December 2009. The Tribunal asked the applicant what his role as Marketing Assistant entailed. The applicant stated that he would find out about stock lots in factories pertaining to textile products. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he meant by stock lots and the applicant advised that many companies have goods that they are unable to sell and that customers reject and that these were onsold.

19. The Tribunal asked the applicant when he commenced work at Wind Safe.  The applicant advised that he worked in this business from January 2010 to May 2011 and that his role was as a marketing executive selling glass predominantly for windows and doors. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether this was a role in sales and the applicant stated that it was a combination of work in sales as well as production and that he was attempting to sell goods to local markets.

20. The Tribunal made reference to the references provided from both K A Impex and Wind Safe.  The Tribunal noted that the references were provided at 2 disparate points in time, one in January 2010, the other in May 2011. The Tribunal noted that the references provided by 2 disparate companies were remarkably similar in content. The Tribunal noted that both references certified that the applicant had worked in the organisation in the capacity of Marketing Assistant in the case of K A Impex and Marketing Executive in the case of Wind Safe. The Tribunal further noted that the second paragraph of each reference noted that during the time the applicant worked for the organisation the organisation found the applicant to be “a talented person who always performed every job entrusted to him with great satisfaction to his superiors”. The references also both stated that the applicant had “very good communication skills”. The Tribunal noted that these similarities brought into question the provenance of both references that the Tribunal found it difficult to accept that both referees would provide references that were in parts word for word in their similarities. The applicant was invited to comment on these concerns. The applicant stated that both companies were small companies employing 6 to 8 employees and that the references just describe what the applicant he did in the respective positions.

21. The Tribunal made reference to a document the applicant provided at review from the government of Pakistan Central Board of Revenue called a National Tax Number Certificate. The Tribunal asked the applicant how this document was obtained. The Tribunal also noted that it had looked at this type of document in Google images and that there was some differential features in the documents observed in Google. To this end the Tribunal logged into Google and gave the applicant and his representative an opportunity to look at similar types of documents, the Tribunal made reference to the differentials in the documents and invited the applicant to comment on these differentials, noting that fraudulent documents were easily obtainable in countries like Pakistan.  The applicant responded by inviting the Tribunal to go into the tax department of Pakistan website put in the applicant’s personal details and it would indicate that the applicant paid tax whilst an employee of Gul Ahmed.

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant what type of visa he travelled to Australia on. The applicant advised that he travelled to Australia as the holder of a Student visa in November 2011 and that the visa was initially valid until 2013 and that he obtained a further visa valid until 2016. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his study history and the applicant stated that he studied English for academic purposes and that he completed a Certificate IV in Accounting and a Diploma in Accounting. 

23. The applicant stated that in 2012 he started working in his brother’s business which was a business that remitted monies back to Pakistan located in Lakemba. The applicant stated that he was sponsored by his brother to work in the business as a Customer Service Manager as the holder of a Subclass 457 visa and was granted this visa in January 2014 which is valid until January 2018. The Tribunal asked the applicant how many people currently worked in this business and he advised there were 4 people that worked there a person in Pakistan and 3 people that worked out of the office in Lakemba. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his role and he advised that it was as a Customer Service Manager in the business. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his wife and children came to Australia with him in 2011 on a student visa and the applicant advised that they joined him at a later stage in May 2012. He advised that he had 2 children, one age 6 years, one aged 4 years, and a child that was due to be born in September 2017.

24. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he owned property in Pakistan and he advised that he owned residential property in Karachi and that his mother was currently residing in that property. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his wife had been working and he advised that his wife had previously worked in his brother’s business on a part-time basis but due to her current pregnancy and the imminent birth of their third child she was no longer working.

25. The Tribunal took evidence from the applicant’s brother Mr Munir Muhammed.  The Tribunal asked the witness what evidence he wanted to provide.  The witness stated that he had been in Australia since 1990. The witness stated that his brother had previously worked in an unstable part of Karachi and that his mother had been worried about him. He advised that his brother had worked for him in his business since 2011 and that his Excel skills were excellent. The Tribunal made an attempt to contact Mr Nasir Sharif Human Resources Manager with Gul Ahmed (at the request of the applicant) by telephone without success despite multiple attempts. The Tribunal also attempted to make contact by telephone with another offshore witness Mr Ayaz Ilyas without success once again despite multiple attempts. The hearing concluded.

26. The Tribunal received a post hearing submission from the applicant’s representative dated 4 September 2017 which the Tribunal has duly considered. The submission notes that there is sufficient corroborative independent evidence to substantiate the employment of the applicant with Gul Ahmed and “that notwithstanding the ease with which false documentation may be created and available in Pakistan that the preponderance of the evidence from multiple sources which corroborate the identity and the employment of the applicant would comfortably satisfy the Tribunal that the claimed employment was genuine”.

27. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant post hearing on 13 October 2017 under Section 359A of the Migration Act inviting the applicant to comment or respond to certain information that the Tribunal considered would, subject to the applicant’s comments, be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. The Tribunal made reference to the provenance of the references provided by the applicant from K A Impex and Windsafe, predominantly the similarity in the references, along with an attempt by the overseas post to verify the references which went cumulatively considered could lead the Tribunal to affirm the Departmental decision under review as it suggested that the applicant had failed to comply with Section 101 of the Migration Act.

28. The Tribunal received a response to this letter from the applicant’s representative on 24 October 2017. The applicant’s representative stated that in his view “the current problem of verification of the documents is caused by the effluxion of time and a lack of forensic technique by offshore locally engaged integrity staff. Notwithstanding those difficulties, the applicant has produced corroborative evidence concerning the Gul Ahmed employment and has now produced evidence of the Windsafe employment and an explanation as to under what circumstances a letter of work experience from 2 different employers could have the same words in it.”  The submission concludes “that having regard to the totality of the circumstances it is respectfully submitted that you would comfortably be satisfied that the employment as claimed by the applicant is correct”.

29. 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.

30. 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.

1. 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?

2. 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 in the following respects: will that the applicant did not comply with s.101(b) of the Migration Act because it appears that he provided the Department with incorrect information within the Form 1066 as part of his application for a Subclass 457 visa that he lodged with the Department of Immigration on 28 June 2013. The Department further concluded that the reference provided by the applicant in support of his skills and qualifications from Gul Ahmed was a bogus document within the meaning of s.103(5)(1) of the Migration Act.

3. As noted the Department of Immigration alleged in the NOICC that the applicant provided incorrect answers regarding his qualifications, training and skills namely the provision of a reference from Gul Ahmed Textile Mills the provenance of which was later found to be questionable after Departmental Integrity checks. The Department of Immigration reached this view on the basis that a representative from Gul Ahmed who had been contacted by the Department advised that they had no record of the applicant undertaking work with the business. The Department concluded that the applicant had not only provided incorrect information but had also provided a bogus document within the meaning of s.103(5)(1) of the Migration Act.

4. In response to the NOICC the applicant through his representative restated that he had worked for Gul Ahmed and he supplied an email from the business as evidence of his employment with the business which is located at folio 56 of the Departmental file. The applicant also supplied a transaction statement from his bank that showed that the business paid the applicant’s salary into this account as well as a tax certificate from the Pakistani Government evidencing that he was paying tax on income earned from Gul Ahmed.  The applicant argued that based on this evidence he had not provided a bogus document as he had in fact been employed by the business.

5. As has been noted the Department of Immigration proceeded to cancel the applicant’s visa placing more weight on the evidence that had been provided through the integrity checks with Gul Ahmed over the evidence in rebuttal provided by the applicant. The Department raised concerns over the authenticity of the bank transaction statements that were provided by the applicant.

6. During the review stage the applicant’s representative provided a number of submissions to the Tribunal. In submissions provided on 28 August 2017 the applicant’s representative noted that the findings made by the Department as a result of the integrity checks were rebutted by evidence obtained from Gul Ahmed confirming the applicant’s employment. Further to this supplementary evidence corroborated the applicant’s employment with this business.  The submission noted that as a consequence the documents provided in support of the applicants work experience were verifiable and were not incorrect information or bogus documents. The submission stated that the Departmental findings around the provenance of the bank statements were weak and further evidence was provided of the applicant’s employment through the provision of a tax certificate.

7. During the course of the review the Tribunal raised concerns about the veracity of other employment references from Windsafe and K A Impex references which were extensively discussed during the course of the review hearing. The Tribunal post hearing made an attempt to seek verification of these references through the Department in Pakistan. The Department was unable to conclusively verify the references. The Tribunal raised concerns about the similarity in the text of the 2 references in its letter of 13 October 2017.

8. The Tribunal has given consideration to the response provided by the applicant’s Migration Agent dated 24 October 2017. This evidence included a Google search indicating that Windsafe is an operational company and further to this that the signatory of the Windsafe reference had written a letter addressed to the Tribunal verifying the signature on the reference in question. Further to this that the Windsafe referee had explained the similarity in the references provided by Windsafe and K. A Impex on the basis that the applicant had provided the reference issued by K A Impex to use as a template for the production of the reference from Windsafe. The submission further notes that there was difficulty in the verification of the reference documents due to the passage of time and what the applicant’s representative refers to as a “ lack of forensic technique”. The applicant’s representative noted that the documents have been unable to be verified rather than proven to be false and as a consequence Section 101 of the Migration Act should not be enlivened.

9. The Tribunal during the course of the review has rigorously looked at the evidence relied upon by the Department of Immigration to ground its finding that the applicant provided incorrect information and a bogus document in support of his Subclass 457 visa application.

10. The Tribunal during the course of the review also questioned the provenance of 2 additional references provided by the applicant in support of his skills and experience from Windsafe and K A Impex.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s account that the referee from Windsafe had been provided with the reference given to the applicant by K A Impex to use as a template, accounting for their similarities.  There is no additional evidence before the Tribunal to bring into question the authenticity of these additional references relied upon by the applicant in support of his subclass 457 visa application.

11. Having regard to all of the evidence before it including independent evidence from the applicant’s previous employer at Gul Ahmed confirming the applicant’s employment; a bank transaction statement pertaining to salary payments from Gul Ahmed to the applicant along with a tax certificate from the Pakistani government indicating that the applicant was paying tax on income earned from Gul Ahmed; the applicant’s evidence at review hearing and the post hearing submissions the Tribunal finds that the applicant did not provide incorrect information and conversely a bogus document to the Department in support of his Subclass 457 visa application.

12. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was no non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. It follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

13. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act, it follows that the discretionary power to cancel the applicant’s visa does not arise.

    DECISION

14. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

    John Cipolla
    Senior 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.