Nehra (Migration)

[2024] AATA 959

Nehra (Migration) [2024] AATA 959 (19 April 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Shweta Nehra

CASE NUMBER:  2302279

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1546374

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:19 April 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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 19 April 2024 at 2:58pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – incorrect information in the visa application – bogus documents – education qualifications – applicant studied at Institute affiliated with the University – successful study progress in postgraduate degrees in Australia – family financial hardship – qualifications and work in aged care – decision under review set aside           

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 97-105, 107-109, 140, 359
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).

2. The visa that was cancelled was granted on 29 June 2021 for a stay period until 15 September 2023.

3. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had provided incorrect answers in a visa application, breaching s 101(b) of the Act, and producing bogus documents, breaching s 103 of the Act. The issue in the present case is whether the grounds for cancellation were made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 March 2024 at 9.30 am to give evidence and present arguments.

5. 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

6. Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with s 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.

7. 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.

8. 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?

9. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s 107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s 107 notice was non-compliance with s 101(b) and s 103. The s 107 notice advised relevantly as follows:

   Particulars of the possible non-compliance:

   I consider that there has been non-compliance with the following section(s) of the Migration Act 1958:

   Section 101 Visa applications to be correct

   s101. 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

   Section 98 of the Act provides that 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.

   By operation of section 99 of the Migration Act 1958, 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.

   Section 100 of the Act provides that 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.

   Section 103 Bogus document not to be given etc.

   s103. “A non-citizen must not give, present or provide to an officer, an authorised system, the Minister, or a tribunal performing a function or purpose under this Act, a bogus document or cause such a document to be so given, presented or provided.”

   For the purposes of Subdivision C of the Migration Act 1958 ‘bogus document’ is defined at section 5(1) of the Act as follows:

   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.

   On 17 June 2021, you made an application for a Student visa to study a Master of Technology (Software Engineering) at Federation University Australia.

   As part of the application, you completed a form ‘Application for a Student Visa (hereafter referred to as ‘the Form’), and provided the following information in part (answers in italics):

   On page eight, at Education, (in part)

   Highest level of schooling

   Give details of the applicant’s highest level of schooling completed outside Australia.

   Highest level of schooling        Bachelor degree (including honours) or equivalent completed:

   Course name:            BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY (COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING)

   Institution name:          PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

   Country of institution:    INDIA

   On page 17, at Declarations, you provided the following information (in part):

   Warning:

   Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

   The applicants declare that they:

   Have provided complete and correct information in every detail on this for, 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

   In addition, along with other documents, you provided the following documents to support your Student visa application:

   ·Result cum Detailed Marks Card (15/917313) for Lateral Entry – B.Tech (COMP. SCI. & ENGG.), Third Sem, Nov-2015, issued by I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University) on 15 May 2016, in the name of Shweta Nehra (Roll No 1502456799).

   ·Result cum Detailed Marks Card (15/928533) for Lateral Entry – B.Tech (COMP. SCI. & ENGG.), Fourth Sem, April-2016, issued by I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University) on 25 October 2016, in the name of Shweta Nehra (Roll No 1502456799).

   ·Result cum Detailed Marks Card (15/930644) for Lateral Entry – B.Tech (COMP. SCI. & ENGG.), Fifth Sem, Nov-2016, issued by I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University) on 25 May 2017, in the name of Shweta Nehra (Roll No 1502456799).

   ·Result cum Detailed Marks Card (16/941756) for Lateral Entry – B.Tech (COMP. SCI. & ENGG.), Sixth Sem, April-2017, issued by I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University) on 25 October 2017, in the name of Shweta Nehra (Roll No 1502456799).

   ·Result cum Detailed Marks Card (17/954877) for Lateral Entry – B.Tech (COMP. SCI. & ENGG.), Seventh Sem, Nov-2017, issued by I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University) on 29 April 2018, in the name of Shweta Nehra (Roll No 1502456799).

   ·Result cum Detailed Marks Card (17/966902) for Lateral Entry – B.Tech (COMP. SCI. & ENGG.), Eighth Sem, April-2018, issued by I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University) on 4 September 2018, in the name of Shweta Nehra (Roll No 1502456799).

   ·Passing certificate for Bachelor of Technology (EDP S No 9258624), issued by I K Gujral Punjab Technical – University Jalandhar (formerly known as Punjab Technical University) on 23 May 2019, in the name of Shweta Nehra, student of M.L.B Institute of Management and technology, Jagraon.

   Based on the above information, as well as meeting all other relevant criteria, you were granted a Student visa on 29 June 2021.

   Following the grant of your Student visa, the following adverse information has become available:

   ·You have not completed your Bachelor degree from Punjab Technical University.

   ·The academic transcripts you submitted in association with your Student visa application in 2021, which include mark sheets for semesters three to eight, and a completion certificate, issued in the name of Shweta Nehra by I K Gujral Punjab Technical – University Jalandhar (formerly known as Punjab Technical University), are non‑genuine.

   The Department conducted integrity checks with I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University), and they confirmed the academic certificates you have provided are not consistent with their University records.

   Based on all available information, I consider you have not completed a Bachelor of Technology from the I K Gujral Punjab Technical University(formerly known as Punjab Technical University), and the academic transcripts you provided, purportedly issued to you by the I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University), are counterfeit, or have been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so, and are therefore, bogus as defined by paragraph (b) under section 5(1) of the Act.

   Given the information outlined above, I consider that you provided incorrect answers regarding your education, and submitted bogus documents in support of your Student visa application lodged on 17 June 2021. I consider therefore, that you have not complied with sections 101(b) and 103 of the Act.

   Non-compliance with Sections 101(b)

   I consider there has been non-compliance with section 101(b) of the Act in relation to the information you provided on page eight in your Student visa application form, in relation to your education. You claimed to have completed a Bachelor of Technology from the I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University) in April 2018.

   However, integrity checks conducted by the Department indicate you have not completed a Bachelor of Technology from I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University), which, in turn, indicates that you provided incorrect information in your Student visa application.

   Based on the above information, I consider that you have not complied with section 101(b) of the Act.

   Non-compliance with Sections 103

   To support your Student visa application lodged on 17 June 2021, you provided academic transcripts including a degree completion certificate and mark sheets for a Bachelor of Technology, purportedly issued by I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University). However, the Department conducted integrity checks with I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (formerly known as Punjab Technical University), and they confirmed the academic certificates you have provided are not consistent with their University records, and are therefore bogus, as defined by the Act.

   I consider therefore that you have not complied with section 103 of the Act because I consider bogus documents, within the meaning provided by section 5(1)(b) of the Act, were provided in association with your Student visa application, in order to satisfy the legislative requirements for the grant of a visa.

   Given the information outlined above, I consider your Student visa may be liable for cancellation under section 109 of the Act. It is not relevant whether you deliberately or inadvertently did not comply.

10. The applicant was notified of and invited to comment on the intention to consider the cancellation of their student visa on 1 December 2022. The applicant did not provide a response.

11. The applicant provided a statement and documents to the Tribunal. The applicant refers to the documents she provided for the student visa which are alleged to be bogus. The applicant refers to the finding of the decision-maker that the documents are non‑genuine. The applicant indicates that she understands integrity checks were ‘failed’ where I K Gujral Punjab Technical University ‘declined to confirm the authenticity of my educational documents however when I collected my study documents I did not receive any other document affirming the genuine component of my overseas studies’.

12. The applicant asks for the Tribunal to verify educational documents.

13. The applicant provided documents as follows:

    ·a transcript from Federation University indicating six units completed in 2021 and 2022 in relation to a Master of Technology (Software Engineering);

    ·Transcript from Melbourne Institute of Technology relating to a Master of Networking showing marks gained for four units in 2022. In 2023, three units are listed with a grade of ‘0’;

    ·Confirmation of Enrolments in the Master of Technology (Software Engineering) and the Master of Networking;

    ·Certification dated 28 July 2022 of the application fulfilling the requirements for a Certificate III in Individual Support (Ageing);

    ·Transcript, undated, of 13 units passed in a Certificate III in Individual Support (Disability);

    ·Certificate of Completion dated 14 April 2023 for the completion of a ‘Quality, Safety and You’ – NDIS Worker Orientation Module.

14. The Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing adverse information in terms of the ground for cancellation being made out pursuant to s 359AA of the Act.

15. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the delegate’s decision refers to enquiries with I K Gujral Punjab Technical University indicating that the applicant’s claimed certificate from the University indicating passing a Bachelor of Technology and associated transcripts are not genuine.

16. In this respect, the Tribunal had obtained from the Department the correspondence from I K Gujral Punjab Technical University indicating that the education documents provided by the applicant claimed as being from the University were not genuine.

17. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that an individual had informed the Department that the applicant had paid money to obtain fraudulent evidence of these studies.

18. The Tribunal put to the applicant that this information was relevant because it suggested the provision of incorrect information and bogus documents as set out by the delegate relevant to the grounds for cancellation being made out. The consequence of relying on the information could be to support the conclusion that incorrect information and bogus documents were provided in the application for the student visa.

19. The applicant indicated that she would respond in writing.

20. The applicant in the hearing said that she did not attend I K Gujral Punjab Technical University itself but studied at MLB Institute of Management and Technology which was affiliated with the University.

21. The Tribunal gave the applicant the opportunity after the hearing to provide evidence from the Institute as to its affiliation with the University and confirmation of the applicant’s study at the Institute in terms of gaining the Bachelor of Technology at I K Gujral Punjab Technical University. The Tribunal also gave the applicant the opportunity after the hearing to provide other evidence of full-time study for three years in the technology course in terms of coursework, assignments and communication with the education provider. In response, the applicant indicated that she has not retained any of this information but would search to check if there were any supporting documents she could provide demonstrating the study.

22. In written response, the applicant refers to her study at MLB Institute of Management and Technology which is claimed to be affiliated with I K Gujral Punjab Technical University. Provided is a letter from MLB Institute of Management and Technology dated 1 December 2022 indicating their affiliation to I K Gujral Punjab Technical University. The letter indicates that the applicant studied from June 2015 until final year in April 2018 completing her three‑year degree from MLB Institute of Management and Technology affiliated with I K Gujral Punjab Technical University.

23. The applicant in the written response indicates that educational documents can be verified by the Tribunal from the website of MLB Institute of Management and Technology.

24. The written response indicates that the applicant can only speculate why an individual has made a complaint against the applicant. It could be a misunderstanding or an attempt to tarnish her reputation due to personal animosity or competitive reasons.

25. The Tribunal contacted the applicant requesting relevant login details and passwords to ascertain education history from the website of MLB Institute of Management and Technology which does have a website based on internet searches. The webpage of the institution does indicate its affiliation with I K Gujral Punjab Technical University.

26. In response, the applicant provided her user ID and password details with steps that the Tribunal should undertake to obtain relevant educational information. However, the applicant indicates that the institution will only issue the ‘Verification Certificate’ which has previously been submitted. In contrast, however, in details given as to the steps to be undertaken to obtain educational information, the applicant indicates that one of the options will initiate the download of all transcripts.

27. The applicant in the written response indicates that the user ID and password remain valid for a maximum period of one year after the completion of any course.

28. This statement is inconsistent with the applicant providing details of the steps the Tribunal should undertake to obtain educational information from the website.

29. As it was, the Tribunal attempted to access the applicant’s records using the user ID and password provided but they were not accepted by the website.

30. It is noted that there is at least a website for MLB Institute of Management and Technology which indicates its affiliation to the I K Gujral Punjab Technical University.

31. The Tribunal is not otherwise able to speculate on the genuineness or integrity of the MLB Institute of Management and Technology and its claimed affiliation with I K Gujral Punjab Technical University. The fact that the latter has denied the genuineness of the applicant’s claimed qualification and transcript is determinative to the Tribunal of their non‑genuineness and that the applicant did not obtain a Bachelor of Technology from the institution.

32. Given the applicant’s successful progress of study in Master’s degrees in Australia, that makes it plausible that the applicant has undertaken in some context some undergraduate study in the area. This is an issue that is considered in the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion.

1. The Tribunal considers, however, that incorrect information and bogus documents have been provided in the student visa application.

2. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s 101(b) and s 103 by the applicant in the way described in the s 107 notice.

   Should the visa be cancelled?

3. 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).

4. 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.

5. While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’. These matters include: the purpose of the visa holder’s travel to and stay in Australia; compelling reasons to remain in Australia; the extent of compliance with visa conditions; the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members; the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose – whether there are extenuating circumstances beyond the visa holder’s control; the visa holder’s past and present behaviour towards the Department; whether there are any persons in Australia whose visas would or may be cancelled under s 140 (i.e. consequential cancellation); whether there are mandatory legal consequences to the decision (whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence in light of any non‑refoulement obligations); provisions in the Act which prevent the person making a valid application without the intervention of the Minister; whether the person would become an unlawful non-citizen (and liable to be detained upon cancellation); whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation; the impact on children of the cancellation; whether the cancellation would lead to removal in breach of Australia's non-refoulement obligations; and any other relevant matters.

6. The correct information would have been that the applicant did not study at the I K Gujral Punjab Technical University and gain a Bachelor of Technology and pass relevant courses as indicated in the claimed transcripts.

7. This study information would have been a significantly relevant factor in determining whether to grant the student visa.

8. The applicant has not acknowledged that the educational documents are bogus or that she provided incorrect information in applying for the student visa in terms of her claimed study. Thus the applicant is not claiming any extenuating circumstances in terms of the ground for cancellation being made out.

9. In terms of present circumstances, in the hearing the applicant indicated in evidence that has been provided of her passing in Australia six units in a Master of Technology (Software Engineering) and four units in a Master of Networking. The applicant indicated that she changed courses to the Master of Networking, being able to grain credits from the units that she had passed in the Master of Technology (Software Engineering). She indicates that in February 2023 she lost her study rights and the provision to complete the Master of Networking.

10. The applicant indicates that during her technology studies, she also gained a Certificate III qualification in Individual Support. Evidence has been provided of this.

11. The applicant indicated that in terms of her work history in Australia she initially worked in a kitchen but during and after her obtaining the Certificate III qualifications she has worked in aged care, which the Tribunal accepts.

12. There are no other instances of non-compliance by the applicant apparent to the Tribunal.

13. The non-compliance occurred in June 2021, thus it has been more than 2½ years since the non‑compliance.

14. In the hearing the applicant referred to her work in the aged care industry as being a relevant contribution to the community.

15. In terms of PAM3, relevant is claimed hardship to the applicant if the visa remains cancelled or compelling reasons to remain in Australia. In the hearing the applicant indicated that her intention if the visa is reinstated is to complete the four units remaining for her to be able to obtain the Master of Networking. She then intends to return to India and seek employment in the sector. The applicant indicates that she does not intend to work in aged care in India which is not an established sector for employment.

16. The applicant indicates that it will cause hardship for her if she is not able to complete her desired study in Australia, limiting her work opportunities in India. She referred to the wasted expense of her parents in funding her studies in Australia. Relevant also will be the disappointment.

17. In the exercise of its discretion in terms of cancelling the visa, in the applicant’s favour is the fact that she has made solid progress in her technology studies in Australia. The past claimed incorrect and fraudulent study in the Bachelor of Technology in India has not been a hindrance and she has been able to make good progress at a Master's level in technology courses in Australia. This makes it plausible that the applicant has undertaken undergraduate study in the area even though the Tribunal does not accept it was obtained or completed at I K Gujral Punjab Technical University. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant only has four units to complete to obtain a Master of Networking in Australia.

18. The Tribunal accepts that it will be a significant hardship to the applicant if she is not able to complete this course, particularly given its level of completion and the significant limitations on the applicant’s career opportunities if returned to India. The Tribunal accepts wasted resources by the applicant’s family in funding her study in Australia.

19. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has obtained qualifications in Australia relevant to the provision of aged care, an area in which she has worked in Australia. Given the shortage of workers in the sector, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s work in this area has constituted a not insignificant contribution to the community.

20. As a matter of policy, where an individual has provided non‑genuine educational qualifications in an application for a student visa, there are strong policy grounds that such an individual should lose their entitlement to continue in Australia holding a student visa unless there are very strong countervailing factors.

21. In this case, although it is a finely balanced decision, the Tribunal determines not to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa. This is significantly based on the applicant making solid progress in her Master’s studies in Australia up until the cancellation of the visa which suggests that she has had some undergraduate study in the field even though it is not from the institution claimed by the applicant. It is based on the initiative of the applicant gaining other qualifications and working in aged care, a much needed sector in Australia for qualified workers. The Tribunal agrees that there would be significant hardship to the applicant if the visa remains cancelled in terms of her not being able to complete her Master’s study as desired in Australia plus limiting career options on return to India.

22. The Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s 107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.

    DECISION

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

    David McCulloch
    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.