Rong (Migration)

[2023] AATA 3236

Rong (Migration) [2023] AATA 3236 (29 June 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Xue Rong

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Nicholas Poynder

CASE NUMBER:  2115944

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/1372780

MEMBER:Bridget Cullen

DATE:29 June 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa.

Statement made on 29 June 2023 at 12:48pm

CATCHWORDS 

MIGRATION – cancellation – Return (Residence) (Class BB) visa – Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) – ground for cancellation – incorrect information in previous visa application – de facto spouse – bogus document – fraudulently altered documents – statements issued by Vodafone – unwitting victim of migration fraud – expert witness – digital forensic expert – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION 

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5CB, 101, 103, 107, 109, 375A, 376

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.12

CASES

Rong v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 673

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 (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa under s 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the Applicant’s visa on the basis that there was non-compliance with s 103 of the Act in relation to a previously held Skilled Independent (Subclass 189) visa. The Applicant, who was the primary visa applicant, included in the Subclass 189 visa Mr Jin Zhang as a member of her family unit (de facto partner). The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The Applicant has provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record, dated 26 October 2021.

4. The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for 9 December 2022, which was postponed at the Applicant’s request. The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 March 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. 

5. The Applicant was represented in relation to the review by Mr Nicholas Poynder, Barrister, who attended the hearing and made representations on the Applicant’s behalf.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be set aside.

   Non-disclosure Certificates ss 375A and 376

7. On 8 February 2022, the Tribunal informed the Applicant of the existence of s 375A and s 376 Non-Disclosure Certificates, both dated 11 November 2021 (the s 375A Certificate and the s 376 Certificate), in response to the Applicant’s request for information under s 362A of the Act.  

8. Having considered the information the subject of the s 375A Certificate and the s 376 Certificate, and details regarding the delegates who signed the Certificates, the Tribunal is satisfied that both are valid certificates.

9. The Department issued the s 375A Certificate regarding information that, if revealed, would prejudice a current or pending investigation of a possible breach of the law or enforcement of the law in a particular instance, and would be likely to prejudice the ongoing effectiveness of lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law. The gist of the information covered by the s 375A Certificate may give rise to concerns regarding the provision of incorrect information to the Department by the Applicant.

10. The Department issued the s 376 Certificate regarding information that had been given to the Minister, or to an officer of the Department, in confidence.

11. On 27 February 2023, the Applicant sent in a subsequent request to the Tribunal to release the documents covered by the s 375A and s 376 Certificates.

12. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to disclose the material covered by the s 376 Certificate to the Applicant. The effect of a s 375A Certificate is that the Tribunal has no discretion to disclose its contents, and this was communicated to the Applicant on 3 March 2023.

13. At the hearing on 6 March 2023, Mr Poynder, the Applicant’s Barrister, requested that the Tribunal disclose the gist or substance of the Document Examination Unit report.

14. The Tribunal has considered the nature of the documents covered by the s 375A Certificate. The documents detail methods used by the Department’s Forensic Documents Examiner to detect irregularities and/or the alteration of documents that were provided with the visa application. While some of the information contained in the subject document has been disclosed to the Applicant by the Department, there was other information which was relevant to issues in the review which had not been disclosed.

15. The Tribunal is satisfied that the s 375A Certificate provides a valid public interest reason for non-disclosure and is satisfied that the Certificate is valid. As such, the Tribunal considers that it is obliged not to release the certificated information. In any case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant information contained in those documents has been disclosed to the Applicant in the s 107 notice and the Applicant had an opportunity to respond to the information. Furthermore, the information was set out in the delegate’s decision record which was provided to the Tribunal with the review application.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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?

19. 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) visa applications to be correct, and s 103 bogus documents not to be given. Relevantly, s 101(b) requires that:

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

    (b) no incorrect answers are given or provided.

20. Section 103 provides that:

    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.

    For the purposes of Subdivision C of the Act ‘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;

21. On 10 October 2014, the Applicant lodged an application for a Skilled – Independent (Subclass 189) visa which included Jin Zhang as her dependent de facto spouse. The Applicants declared that they understood that the giving of false or misleading information is a serious offence, that they had read and understood the information provided to them in the application, that they had provided complete and correct information in every detail in the form and on any attachments, and they understood that if, after the visa has been granted, any documents were found to be fraudulent or information found to be incorrect, that the visas may be subsequently cancelled.

22. The Tribunal notes that the s 107 notice was set out in full in the delegate’s Decision Record and states the following:

    To support the above answers and in support of her de facto relationship with Jin ZHANG, the visa holder provided a document titled ‘Xue Rong’s Love Story’. She stated in this document that:

    “[…]

    I moved to his room first in 07/2013 when I came back from China early July 2013, this was the beginning of our long lasting de-factor (sic) relationship. after a few months, we decided to move out from my current address to take a while house and we can live more free, and we moved to 14/8 Monar (sic) St, Eight Miles Plains since 10/2013 and live together until now.

    […]”The delegate who issued the s 107 notice considered that the Applicant had to satisfy the definition of ‘Member of the family unit’, as provided for in Regs 1.03 and 1.12, to meet the requirements in cl 189.311 for the grant of the visa.

    To support the above statement and as evidence of her joint cohabitation with Jin ZHANG from July 2013 and at 14/8 Manor Street Eight Mile Plains Queensland 4226 from October 2013 onwards, the visa holder provided; amongst other documents, the following:

    Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) bank statement addressed to Miss X Rong 29 Narrooma Street SUNNYBANK QLD 4109

    CBA bank statement addressed to Mr J Zhang 29 Narrooma Street SUNNYBANK QLD 4109

    CBA bank statement addressed to Miss X Rong 14-8 Manor Street EIGHT MILES PLAIN QLD 4113

    CBA bank statement addressed to Mr J Zhang 14-8 Manor Street EIGHT MILES PLAIN QLD 4113

23. Regulation 1.12 relevantly defines ‘Member of the family unit’ (in part) as a ‘spouse or de facto partner’ of the family head. Section 5CB of the Act defines de facto relationship for the purposes of ‘Member of the family unit’ as:

    Section 5CB De facto partner

    De facto partners

    (1)  For the purposes of this Act, a person is the de facto partner of another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) if, under subsection (2), the person is in a de facto relationship with the other person.

    De facto relationship

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is in a de facto relationship with another person if they are not in a married relationship (for the purposes of section 5F) with each other but:

    (a) they have a mutual commitment to a shared life to the exclusion of all others; and

    (b) the relationship between them is genuine and continuing; and

    (c) they:

    (i) live together; or

    (ii) do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis; and

    (d) they are not related by family (see subsection (4)).

24. The delegate considered that, based on the material provided regarding the Applicant and Mr Zhang’s cohabitation, that the Applicant was the de facto partner of Jin Zhang, and granted the Applicant the Subclass 189 visa on 12 January 2015.

    Subsequent information received by the Department

25. Subsequent to the granting of the Applicant’s Subclass 189 visa, the Department undertook a forensic examination of the statements issued by Vodafone which were provided with the visa application, and found that the residential addresses shown on the documents did not match the residential addresses officially linked and registered to those documents.

26. Based on the later information received, the delegate considered the documents to be ‘bogus documents’ as they were counterfeit or had been altered by a person without the authority to do so, as defined by s 5(1)(b) of the Act.

27. On 8 May 2018, the Applicant lodged an Application for Australian Citizenship by Conferral, which was approved on 30 July 2019. On 28 November 2019, the Applicant lodged an application for a Resident Return subclass 155 visa. The visa was granted on 12 May 2020.

28. After the Department’s internal examination unit concluded that there was evidence that the Applicant had fraudulently altered documents submitted as part of her Skilled-Independent visa application, the Department cancelled the Applicant’s approval for citizenship on 2 January 2020 on the basis that she did not meet the ‘good character’ requirement. The Applicant lodged an application for the review with the General Division of the AAT, which was affirmed on 18 December 2020. The Applicant initiated judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court. His Honour Justice Greenwood set aside the decision of the AAT (General Division) to refuse approval for the grant of Australian citizenship on 9 June 2022. 

29. A Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation in relation to the Applicant’s 5-year Resident Return visa was sent to the Applicant on 16 September 2021. It is the review of this matter that is currently before this Tribunal.

    The Applicant’s view of her relationship with Mr Jin Zhang

30. The Tribunal thinks it at least plausible, on the evidence before it, that the Applicant has been an unwitting victim of migration fraud. The Applicant has maintained that she neither created bogus documents nor was complicit in their delivery to the Department. Her hypothesis is that her former partner, Mr Jin Zhang, either together or with her former representative, caused the bogus documents to be given to the Department, without her consent or even her knowledge.

31. The delegate’s decision record contains an extract from the Applicant’s Statutory Declaration dated 27 November 2019, which was provided in response to the Notice of Intention to Cancel her Resident Return (subclass 155) visa:

    In about August 2014, I got to know an agent consultant by the name Andrew Liu through my friend Jacky who lives in Sydney. Andrews’s company office was located at 591 George Street in Sydney NSW.

    […]

    I met the agent in his office and told him that I would like to apply for the application as the main applicant and my de facto husband Jin Zhang as the family dependent.
    After I engaged him with the service, Andrew asked me to bring him as much relationship evidence as I had and then he will lodge the application as soon as possible.

    I was glad to hear that and told him I would get back home to do a search and would give him as much evidence as I could collect.

    A few days later I returned to the office and gave him my and Jin Zhang’s bank statements at the Commonwealth Bank during the period of 2013 to 2014 as well as some photos taken together since that were all the thing I could locate in relation to de facto relationship evidence for the application.

    After that I entrusted all my subclass 189 application to Andrew Liu to handle and paid the service fee.

    On 10 October 2014, Andrew Liu lodged the Application to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Only by now have I found out the he lodged the application through an immi-account created by him in my name. The correspondence after that were all replied on my behalf by Andrew Liu who would notify me for additional information and documents provision such as character reference (National Police Check), required health examinations, provision of my certified passport photocopies, etc.

    In about January 2015, my subclass 189 was granted. Andrew Liu informed me about that and he said his assistance was completed.

    I have never seen Andrew Liu again after that.

32. The Applicant points out that while there would have been an incentive for Mr Jin Zhang to concoct documents that would strengthen the case that they were de facto partners, the Applicant knew that she independently met the skilled visa points test. The Applicant genuinely believed that she was in a de facto relationship with Mr Jin Zhang. She was then a young, inexperienced student from a wealthy Chinese family. Now, older and wiser, and married with an infant child, the Applicant believes that she may have been taken advantage of. This realisation has come following the benefit of life experience, and the reflection that comes with hindsight following misfortune. The Applicant’s relationship with Mr Ji Zhang has very much led to misfortune for her, as well as a very significant legal journey through the Tribunal and Courts, and no doubt, significant legal expenditure.

33. The Tribunal accepts that, at all relevant points, the Applicant held a genuine belief that she was in a de facto relationship with Mr Jin Zhang. The Tribunal has not heard from Mr Jin Zhang, nor from the “representative” that “assisted” the Applicant and Mr Jin Zhang, and makes no adverse findings in relation to the conduct of either.

    The context, as summarised by the Federal Court

34. Fortuitously for this Tribunal, but rather tragically for the Applicant, the Tribunal has the benefit of Judicial authority summarising the factual matrix now before it.

35. His Honour explains, in his judgement in Rong v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 673 (9 June 2022), the salient issues:

    14On 10 October 2014, an online application was completed for a points‑based Skilled Independent (Subclass 189) visa. The primary applicant is recorded as Miss Xue Rong (“Ms Rong”), a national of the People’s Republic of China (“China”). A family member included in the application was described as Ms Rong’s de facto partner/spouse, Mr Jin Zhang, also a national of China. As to the contact details in Australia, the residential address recited in the online application for those persons included in the application was “14/8 manor st eight mile plains Queensland 4226”. As to an email address, the application recites the following email address for the applicant: rongxueXYZ. The email address for the purposes of these reasons is otherwise anonymised. In these reasons, I will call this particular email address the “XYZ email”. The application recites the applicant’s agreement to the Department communicating with the applicant by way of receiving notifications by the XYZ email.

    15 In terms of the skills assessment, the nominated position held by Ms Rong recited in the application was that of “Accountant General”. The application recites the educational qualifications of Ms Rong.

    16 Because the application was an online application, it was not signed by Ms Rong or anyone else.

    17 It seems that on 6 December 2014, Ms Kelly Dobie of the Department sent an email to “hyperlink mailto: [the XYZ email]”, addressed to “Dear Xue Rong” attaching particular information and observing that “[w]e prefer contact with this office concerning your application to be email”.

    18 On 1 January 2015, an email was sent to “GSMBrisbane” from “Xue Rong” under the subject “RONG, Xue – IMMI Request for More Information” addressed to “Dear Kelly”. The hard copy of the email describes the sender as set out above but does not identify the email address. It was common ground before the Tribunal (and in these proceedings) that the email was sent from the XYZ email.

36. His Honour also addresses the Applicant’s evidence that not only did she never utilise the email address rongxueXYZ, she has always used the email, ruohan[ABC]:

    31 Ms Rong was asked to list all of her current email addresses including “work, business, personal, home or other emails” used by her. She listed only one email: ruohan[ABC]. In these reasons, I will call this particular email address the “ABC email”, so as to maintain the anonymity of the email address. For all electronic communication with the Department, Ms Rong nominated the ABC email address.

    The Applicant’s Expert Evidence

37. The Applicant provided further submissions to the Tribunal on 30 March 2023, following the hearing. The Applicant has provided the Tribunal with an expert report, prepared by Mr Jarret Le Roux, the Director of Triage Forensics Pty Ltd. A copy of Mr Le Roux’s Curriculum Vitae is annexed to his report, and reveals that he has been a digital forensic expert for approximately 11 years. He has experience examining digital forensic data, including emails. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Le Roux is a qualified, neutral and objective, expert witness.

1. Mr Le Roux was instructed to investigate and report on the following matters:

   ·Examine the documents attached to the email to ascertain if it is possible to determine the originating IP address of the sender of the email sent to the Department of Immigration.

   ·The email was sent on 1 January 2015 at 12.14pm.

   ·The email was sent from the email account “XYZ email”.

2. The Applicant submits that Mr Le Roux’s expert report, in conjunction with the annexed “Forensics Bundle”, demonstrates the following:

   ·The Applicant’s original application for the subclass 189 visa was lodged on the Department’s immi-account on 2 October 2014 from an Australian or New Zealand-based IT address registered by Vocus Pty Ltd.

   ·Vocus Pty Ltd does not usually provide internet services to residential customers, such as the Applicant. This is consistent with the Applicant’s contention that the visa application was lodged by an Australian-based business, not by the Applicant.

   ·The email of 1 January 2015 with the forged documents was sent via Gmail. Gmail is available to users to send emails from Australia, New Zealand, or indeed anywhere else in the world. However, it is not available for users to send emails from China, unless a VPN is used.

   ·At the time that the email of 1 January 2015 was sent, the Applicant was in China. There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would have used a VPN to disguise an email sent by Gmail from China. Such conduct would have involved an act of fraud (against China, but also against the Minister, by sending the fraudulent documents), and the level of proof for a finding of fraud is necessarily very high: see, Rong at [101].

3. Overall, the Applicant submits that the expert evidence supports a finding that the Applicant did not “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”.

4. The Tribunal also observes that some of the particulars provided by the Applicant in relation to her former agent are at least plausible. For example, a Google search of the premises the Applicant said she met her “agent” at (591 George Street in Sydney NSW) indicates that there are, or have been, several migration practices located within the building. The Tribunal does not in any way suggest that any of these practices were involved in any improper conduct, or even involved with this Applicant. However, it does demonstrate, consistent with the Applicant’s claims, she attended this address as claimed.

5. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to determine how the Applicant could have found herself in this predicament, but the Tribunal acknowledges that her theory is at least plausible. Essentially, and with the benefit of considered reflection, the Applicant may have been targeted by Mr Jin Zhang, who stood to gain from (forged) evidence that he resided with, and was therefore eligible for a secondary visa with, the Applicant. The Tribunal is not able to determine whether Mr Jin Zhang, acting alone, caused the fraudulent documents to be delivered, or whether he was assisted by a “representative” to enhance his visa prospects.  

6. The Tribunal places significant weight on the expert evidence of Mr Le Roux. The report, together with the Applicant’s own evidence, leads the Tribunal to find that the Applicant was not complicit in the delivery of the documents in question to the Department. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant was unaware that the documents had been altered, that she did not direct for the documents to be altered, and that she practically could not have delivered the documents via Gmail on 1 January 2015, given she was in China. Therefore, the Applicant did not “give, present, produce or provide” the documents in question to the Department.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal finds, that the Applicant did not provide (or cause to be provided) to an officer, authorised system, or the Minister a bogus document in relation to the Subclass 189 visa application.

8. For the above 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.

   DECISION

9. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the Applicant’s Subclass (155) (Five Year Resident Return) visa.

   Bridget Cullen
   Senior 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.