Mehtab (Migration)

[2022] AATA 2042

Mehtab (Migration) [2022] AATA 2042 (18 June 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Adil Mehtab

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Sanmati Verma (MARN: 1276020)

CASE NUMBER:  2013069

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/5453575

MEMBER:Joseph Lindsay

DATE:18 June 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Statement made on 18 June 2022 at 10:53am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – incorrect information in the visa application – bogus document – Secondary School certificate – migration agent’s vested financial interest – correct certificates provided for a later visa application – information provided without the applicant’s knowledge – proactive attempts to provide correct information – decision under review set aside        

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 48, 97-105, 107-109, 140, 189, 198
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.41

CASES

MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248             

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (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.

2. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 June 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. On 14 August 2020, the delegate decided to cancel the applicant’s student visa, as indicated above. Essentially, the delegate found that the applicant’s circumstances did not comply with s 101(b)  and s 103 of the Act and, accordingly, cancelled the visa under s 109 of the Act.

8. Section 101(b) of the Act states:

   101 Visa applications to be correct

   A non-citizen must fill in or complete his or her application form in such a way that:

   …

   (b) no incorrect answers are given or provided.

9. Section 103 of the Act states:

   103 Bogus 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.

10. On 29 September 2018 the applicant lodged an application for a Student (Subclass 500) visa that included the following information (applicant responses in italics):

    Page 9

    Qualification: Senior Secondary School Certificate

    Category of study: Computer Science

    Field of study: Computer Science, n.e.c.

    Course name: Higher Secondary School Certificate

    Institution name: Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (FBISE) Islamabad

    Country of institution: Pakistan

    Date from: 15 Sep 2014

    Date to: 16 Dec 2016

    Page 15

    Declarations

    Warning: Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

    The applicants declare that they:

    Have read and understood the information provided to them in this application: Yes

    Have provided complete and correct information in every details on this form, and on any attachments to it. Yes

    Understand that if documents are found to be fraudulent or information to be incorrect after the grant of a visa, the visa may subsequently be cancelled. Yes

11. In support of his application, the applicant provided a document with the title “Higher Secondary School Certificate” purportedly issued by the Federal Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Islamabad (FBISE). This document, purportedly issued on 16 December 2016, contains the identifier “Roll No. 563478” and indicates the visa holder obtained a total score of 823 for the examinations he undertook in April to May of 2016.

12. In his student visa application, the applicant indicated that he completed his Higher Secondary School Certificate on 16 December 2016.

13. In the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation dated 30 July 2020, the applicant was advised that the Department had conducted integrity checks on the documentation the applicant submitted in association with his student visa application. The Department advised:

    Integrity checks undertaken by the Department with FBISE following the grant of his Student visa appear to indicate that the Higher Secondary School Certificate the visa holder provided is a bogus document.

    The registration number of the visa holder’s Higher Secondary School Certificate was matched to the FBISE database on 15 November 2018 and it has been found that the year of completion of his studies was actually 2015 and he achieved a score of 523. This information was checked one more time with the relevant body and confirmed as the same result.

    As such it appears that the visa holder’s Higher Secondary School Certificate has been altered and is not a genuine certificate.

14. In the submissions to the Tribunal and in the hearing, the applicant indicated that his agent provided the false information, and that the applicant himself was not responsible for the agent’s actions. The applicant’s representative suggested that because the applicant did not specifically authorise his agent to provide false information, the applicant has not breached ss 101 or 103 of the Act. Respectfully, the Tribunal does not accept the suggested interpretation of ss 101 or 103 of the Act.

15. In respect to the above, the Tribunal accepts the above information and finds that the applicant did not comply with s 101(b) of the Act where he gave incorrect answers on pages 9 and 15 of his student visa application as described above.

16. The Tribunal accepts the above information and finds that the applicant did not comply with s 103 of the Act because bogus documents as described above were provided with his student visa application.

17. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that applicant did not comply with ss 101(b) and 103 of the Act when he applied for his student visa on 29 September 2018.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

18. 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).

19. 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: ss 109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in reg 2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Briefly, they are:

    ·     the correct information;

    ·     the content of the genuine document (if any);

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

    ·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred;

    ·     the present circumstances of the visa holder;

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

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

    ·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance;

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

    ·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.

20. 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 Procedures 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.

21. The Tribunal’s assessment of all the prescribed circumstances as set out in reg 2.41 is as follows:

    The correct information

22. The correct information is that the Higher Secondary School Certificate the applicant provided is a bogus document, and that the year of completion of his studies was 2015 and he achieved a score of 523. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration high weight against the applicant.

    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

23. The Tribunal finds that the decision to grant the applicant a student visa was based partly on incorrect information and partly on the bogus document as described above. The Tribunal gives this consideration high weight against the applicant.

    The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred (reg 2.41(d))

24. In the hearing, the Tribunal discussed the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred. The written submissions to the Tribunal included as follows:

    Mr Mehtab did not complete and lodge his Student visa application himself – this was done through an agent by the name of Muhammad Usman Mehmood of the Student Consultancy Network. As Mr Mehtab explained to the Department, he sought the services of that agency as it was located close to his home in Wah Cantt, Rawalpindi. The agency’s website confirms its location in Wahh Cantonment. It further lists Mr Muhammad Usman Mehmood as one of its directors.

    As we address below, Mr Mehtab had no knowledge of or involvement in the falsification of his Year 12 results, provided in support of his Student visa application. He maintains that those results were falsified by his agent, acting outside Mr Mehtab’s instructions and without his authority.

    …

    Mr Mehtab emphatically maintains that he was not involved in the falsification of his year 12 records, and indeed was ignorant of their existence until he received the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of his visa. He explains how those records might have come into existence without his knowledge:

    We did not know much about the process of applying for a visa. We decided to attend the office of a consultant hear our home. His name was Usman Mahmood and his business was Student Consultancy Network based in Wahh Cantonment.

    …

    Usman made the visa application very easy for us. Importantly, in order to encourage us to apply, he told us that he would only take part of the fees up front – and the main fees would only be paid once the visa was approved. He said that he was totally sure of approval which is why he was offering that arrangement.

    After everything that has happened to me, I have now come to realise that Usman offers this arrangement to everyone, to try and encourage them to use his services. He even advertises his firm by using an Australian Registered Migration Agent Number – he claimed that he was in Australia for three years, which is how he obtained his qualification. I do not know if any of that was true or not.

    Usman simply asked me to provide copies of my high school certificate, results for my diploma course and letter in relation to my internship, and he would then do the rest. He also asked me a few questions and prepared a statement of service for me. But I never saw what he actually submitted to the Department of Home Affairs. I thought that he was well qualified and knew what he was doing.

    In other words, Mr Mehtab explains that his migration agent had a vested financial interest in falsifying his secondary school records; this allowed him to enrol Mr Mehtab at RMIT and presumably receive a commission, and in turn facilitated the grant of Mr Mehtab’s Student visa which allowed the agent to collect the remainder of his fee.

    Mr Mehtab’s ignorance of the falsified records is also borne out by subsequent events. In late 2019, when he found that he was struggling with his course, Mr Mehtab engaged a migration agent in Australia to secure his enrolment in another course and lodge a further Student visa. He provided his agent at Bajwa Immigration copies of his genuine year 10 and 12 results, in connection with his further Student visa application. This is, self-evidently, not the conduct of a person who less than a year earlier was involved in the falsification of their school records. Presumably, if Mr Mehtab had been involved in the falsification of his records, then he would have provided the same falsified records to the Department in connection with any further Student visa application.

    We refer the Tribunal to the enclosed email from Bajwa Immigration, which confirms that Mr Mehtab provided the agency with his genuine year 10 and 12 results:

    Dear Client

    As you asked for information about your admission in Menzies Institute of Technology.

    Please refer the information below:

    We received your documents on 03/03/2020.

    Offer accepted on 11/03/2020 and paid the initial fee for the same.

    CoEs Received on 12/03/2020

    We sent them your 10th marksheet (Marks 1050/650) and 12th Marksheet (Marks 1100/523) that we received from you on 03/03/2020.

    The email confirms that, on 3 March 2020 – well before he was issued the Notice – Mr Mehtab instructed Bajwa Immigration to lodge a further Student visa on his behalf. In that connection, he provided Bajwa Immigration with a copy of his Year 10 results (with an overall mark of 650/1050) and Year 12 results (with an overall mark of 523/1100). Information provided in the Notice confirms that the Department verified Mr Mehtab’s Year 12 results, and found that his overall mark was 52311 – which accords with the score on the Year 12 transcript Mr Mehtab provided to Bajwa Immigration.

    Thus, the evidence confirms that – well before he was put on notice by the Department of the bogus documents provided with his Student visa application – Mr Mehtab had instructed a migration agent to lodge a further Student visa application with his genuine year 12 results. This is compelling evidence that Mr Mehtab was not involved in falsifying his year 12 records.

    Finally, the surrounding circumstances also confirm that Mr Mehtab was not involved in the falsification of his year 12 records. As we will return to address at Section 2.2.2. below, even if Mr Mehtab had enrolled in a lower-level vocational course based on his actual year 12 marks, rather than a Bachelor course at RMIT, he would still have been entitled to the grant of a Student visa. The eligibility requirements at Subclass 500 are not limited to applicants enrolled in a Bachelor or higher degree course. Applicants may obtain a Student (Subclass 500) visa based on their enrolment in a ‘course of study,’ defined as a full-time course registered with the Commonwealth Register of International Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS). For instance, Mr Mehtab could have enrolled in a Diploma of Aviation or Avionics – courses that are readily available to international students and registered on CRICOS. He would have been entitled to the grant of a Student visa based on his enrolment in such a course. These circumstances suggest that Mr Mehtab’s migration agent had an interest in enrolling him in a Bachelor degree, rather than a vocational course – perhaps to receive a commission from the university.

25. In the hearing, the Tribunal also received further information from the applicant about the circumstances of this matter. In his evidence, the applicant was adamant that he only ever wanted to become a qualified aircraft maintainer. The applicant stated that he was impressed when his agent told him that he could undertake his studies at RMIT. He stated that he found the course to be very difficult, and far more than he was able to manage. He indicated that these difficulties coincided with a period of ill health, where he had an operation to remove kidney stones. He indicated that this period was quite destabilising for him and he felt that he did not have proper guidance. The Tribunal notes that in his written statement, he said:

    In the middle of the year, I returned to speak to the student counsellors at RMIT. They told me that there was a slight difficulty with my course, in that the subjects were sequential, they followed one after the other. They said that it would be difficult for me to pick up on the subjects without having done the preparation. They suggested that I take a year of leave. But I really did not want to do that.

    I ended up speaking with the head of the department. He recommended that I enroll in some subjects which could be done without the pre-requisite – I think that one was mechanical drawing and another computer designs. So that is what I did.

    Even though I tried to apply myself fully to the course, I found the course content extremely difficult. It was way beyond me. I read everything but I just could not keep up with what was being discussed. I was not even used to the English that was being used in the classroom. I had really suffered not being able to complete the first semester.

    I was extremely worried that I was going to fail those subjects and have my enrolment cancelled. I discussed this with my father, and though he was disappointed, he told me to take some advice about maybe taking a more basic level course that would prepare me to return to the Advanced Diploma.

    Towards the end of 2019, on a friend’s recommendation, I went to speak with Bajwa Migration Agents. My intention was to enroll in a lower-level course – say a Certificate IV related to Aeronautical Engineering. But Bajwa told me that there was no such course. I do not know if that is correct, but that is what he told me.

    Instead, he recommended that I transfer to a series of courses in Automotive Mechanical Technology. He assured me it was directly relevant to Aeronautical Engineering and it would prepare me for the practical side of my course. He told me that he had other clients who had taken the same pathway. I trusted him.

    Bajwa told me that because the Automotive course was at a lower level than the course that I initially intended to study, I would need to apply for another Student visa to allow me to continue. Of course, this would involve further application fees. I talked to my father and he said that if that was the only way I could maintain compliance with my visa conditions, that I should proceed accordingly.

    Bajwa asked me to provide basically the same information that I had provided to Usman – high school certificate and results, Diploma results and internship evidence. He also asked me to provide evidence of my finances from back home. I provided these all to him. I had assumed that he would apply for a further Student visa right away - he took the documents from me and took some time to actually lodge the application.

    In early 2020, I commenced studying toward by Diploma of Automotive Mechanical Technology. After some time, because of COVID-19, the classes transferred to online. But I continued studying online. I thought that I was safe as I had sought the advice of a migration agent who had lodged a Student visa application for me.

    Then suddenly, on 30 July 2020, I received a ‘Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation’ of my Student visa. I was shocked to receive it. First I thought it was a Student visa grant. It was only when I read it that I realized that it was issued on the basis that the secondary results provided with my first Student visa application were false. I was totally devastated.

    I contacted my father right away and told him what Usman had done. He then immediately contacted Usman and I also contacted Usman to ask him to explain what he had submitted. He admitted that he had doctored my Secondary school results, because he thought that my scores were not good enough. He was very relaxed about it – he told my father that he would write a letter saying that it was mix up by his office and that my visa would not be cancelled. He said that the same thing had happened to other clients of his who did not even have a year 12 education, but in the end they had their visa reinstated and were fine.

    I approached Bajwa immediately. Of course, I had provided him with my genuine high school documents. I had provided them to him months ago and I remember that in March 2020, he had emailed copies of my results to Menzies Institute, in order to obtain my enrolment. I assumed that he had lodged my Student visa application, which is what had led to the Department realizing that there was a problem with the previous results. But I was shocked to find out that he had not lodged my Student visa application. I told him to do that for me immediately.

    Of course, I had provided Bajwa with a copy of my genuine high school graduation results to provide to the Department in support of my Student visa application as I did not realise there was any problem in doing so.

    I tried to respond to Department as best as I could, to explain what had happened. I included copies of messages that I sent to my agent in Pakistan, in which I tried to get his explanation as to why he had falsified my documents. The Department did not accept my explanation.

    My Student visa was cancelled on 14 August 2020.

1. In the hearing, the applicant indicated that he regretted ever enrolling in the Diploma of Automotive Mechanical Technology and, in hindsight, wished he had enrolled directly into a Diploma of Aviation.

2. After the hearing, the applicant’s representative provided further documentation indicating that Aviation Australia was prepared to offer the applicant an enrolment in a Certificate IV in Aeroskills (Avionics) commencing in September 2022, provided the applicant’s visa conditions permitted such an enrolment.

3. In discussing these issues with the applicant, the Tribunal accepts that the circumstances as put forward by the applicant are credible. The Tribunal accepts that the false information and bogus documents in respect to the applicant’s educational background were provided by his agent and without his knowledge. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant endured health difficulties that impeded his ability to successfully undertake the RMIT course. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant received further bad advice from the agent “Bajwa.” The Tribunal has given weight to the applicant’s relatively young age and apparent immaturity.

4. In summary, there are concerning issues at play in this matter. In no way does the Tribunal condone the provision of false information in the student visa application. However, the Tribunal has significant concerns about the impact of the applicant’s relative youth, immaturity and, what appears to be, a series of events that has been inextricably affected by the fraudulent behaviour and poor advice of migration agents.  

5. In balancing the above circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and gives this consideration high weight in favour of the applicant. In making this decision however, the Tribunal requests that the Department continue to monitor this applicant for any future transgressions in respect to his studies and compliance with any visa conditions or the requirements of any future visa applications. 

   The present circumstances of the visa holder (reg 2.41(e))

6. The visa holder is currently lawfully onshore as a holder of a Bridging visa E. He does not have any accompanying dependents on the student visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives no weight in the applicant's favour.

   The subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning their obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act (reg 2.41(f))

7. The Tribunal is satisfied that when the Department made the applicant aware of the circumstances of this matter, there is evidence to suggest that the applicant made proactive attempts to provide correct information to the Department and the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this matter some weight in the applicant's favour.

   Any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister (reg 2.41(g))

8. There is no other information before the Tribunal indicating other instances of non-compliance. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

   The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance (reg. 2.41(h))

9. The non-compliance occurred when the applicant applied for the student visa on 29 September 2018. The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance is now nearly four years. The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in the applicant’s favour.

   Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches (reg. 2.41(j))

10. There is no information before me to indicate that the applicant has breached any laws since the non-compliance. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

    Any contribution made by the holder to the community (reg 2.41(k))

11. There is no specific information before the Tribunal to suggest the applicant has made a contribution to the Australian community. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

    Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled consequentially

12. There are no persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled under s 140 of the Act. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

    Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would or may be breached as a result of the visa cancellation

13. The applicant made clear to the Tribunal that he does not fear returning to Pakistan. Accordingly, there is no information before the Tribunal to indicate the circumstances of this case are such that would engage Australia’s international obligations. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision

14. If the student visa is cancelled the applicant would become an unlawful non-citizen and could be liable for detention under s 189 and removal under s 198 of the Act if he does not voluntarily depart. In addition, the cancellation could also place a limitation under s 48 of the Act, which means that the applicant will have limited options to apply for further visas in Australia. In addition, the applicant may not be able to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4013 and therefore the applicant may not be able to be granted a further temporary visa for a period of three years. These consequences reflect the intention of the legislation. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

    Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional, or other hardship)

15. In the hearing, the applicant indicates that if his student visa was cancelled and he returned to Pakistan, this would be a source of disappointment for himself and his family. The Tribunal accepts these circumstances and accordingly gives this factor some weight in the applicant's favour.

    Any other relevant matters

16. There are no other relevant matters for the Tribunal to consider.

    CONCLUSIONS

17. In balancing the above circumstances, the Tribunal finds the reasons not to cancel the visa outweigh the reasons to cancel. In making this decision, however, the Tribunal requests that the Department continue to monitor this applicant for any future transgressions in respect to his studies and compliance with any visa conditions or the requirements of any future visa applications.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

    Joseph Lindsay
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)

    5Interpretation

    (1)In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

    bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

    (a)     purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

    (b)     is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

    (c)      was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

    97Interpretation

    In this Subdivision:

    application form, in relation to a non‑citizen, means a form on which a non‑citizen applies for a visa, being a form that regulations made for the purposes of section 46 allow to be used for making the application.

    passenger card has the meaning given by subsection 506(2) and, for the purposes of section 115, includes any document provided for by regulations under paragraph 504(1)(c).

    Note:Bogus document is defined in subsection 5(1).

    98Completion of visa application

    A non‑citizen who does not fill in his or her application form or passenger card is taken to do so if he or she causes it to be filled in or if it is otherwise filled in on his or her behalf.

    99Information is answer

    Any information that a non‑citizen gives or provides, causes to be given or provided, or that is given or provided on his or her behalf, to the Minister, an officer, an authorised system, a person or the Tribunal, or the Immigration Assessment authority, reviewing a decision under this Act in relation to the non‑citizen’s application for a visa is taken for the purposes of section 100, paragraphs 101(b) and 102(b) and sections 104 and 105 to be an answer to a question in the non‑citizen’s application form, whether the information is given or provided orally or in writing and whether at an interview or otherwise.

    100Incorrect answers

    For the purposes of this Subdivision, an answer to a question is incorrect even though the person who gave or provided the answer, or caused the answer to be given or provided, did not know that it was incorrect.

    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.

    103Bogus documents not to be given etc.

    A non‑citizen must not give, present, [produce]* or provide to an officer, an authorised system, the Minister, the Immigration Assessment Authority, or the Tribunal performing a function or purpose under this Act, a bogus document or cause such a document to be so given, presented, [produced]* or provided.

    * This wording applies to documents given, presented, produced or provided on or after 4 November 2014: Schedule 7 to Counter Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 (No.116, 2014).

    107Notice of incorrect applications

    (1)If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:

    (a)     giving particulars of the possible non‑compliance; and

    (b)     stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:

    (i)if the holder disputes that there was non‑compliance:

    (A)shows that there was compliance; and

    (B)in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub‑subparagraph (A), there was non‑compliance—shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or

    (ii)if the holder accepts that there was non‑compliance:

    (A)give reasons for the non‑compliance; and

    (B)shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and

    (c)      stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:

    (i)if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response—when that notice is given; or

    (ii)if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period—when the response is given; or

    (iii)otherwise—at the end of that period; and

    (d)     setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and

    (e)      informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and

    (f)      requiring the holder:

    (i)to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and

    (ii)if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non‑compliance by the holder—to tell the Minister the changed address.

    (1A)The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:

    (a)     in respect of the holder of a temporary visa—the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or

    (b)     otherwise—14 days.

    (1B)Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:

    (a)     visas of a stated class; or

    (b)     visa holders in stated circumstances; or

    (c)      visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or

    (d)     visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.

    (2)If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.

    108Decision about non‑compliance

    The Minister is to:

    (a)consider any response given by a visa holder in the way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

    (b)decide whether there was non‑compliance by the visa holder in the way described in the notice.

    109Cancellation of visa if information incorrect

    (1)The Minister, after:

    (a)     deciding under section 108 that there was non‑compliance by the holder of a visa; and

    (b)     considering any response to the notice about the non‑compliance given in a way required by paragraph 107(1)(b); and

    (c)      having regard to any prescribed circumstances;

    may cancel the visa.

    (2)If the Minister may cancel a visa under subsection (1), the Minister must do so if there exist circumstances declared by the regulations to be circumstances in which a visa must be cancelled.