Shih (Migration)

[2017] AATA 3085

Shih (Migration) [2017] AATA 3085 (30 November 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Bo-sheng Shih

CASE NUMBER:  1613642

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/1536197

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:30 November 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa.  

Statement made on 30 November 2017 at 4:27pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa  –  Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector – Student visa application form contained incorrect answers –  Known under other names – obfuscate in relation to the past identity of the applicant  – Subject to a three year exclusion period – Deported – Business interests in Australia – No mitigating circumstances

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 98, 101, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 140
Migration Regulations 1994 r 2.41

CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 378 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had breached s.101(b) of the Act by providing incorrect answers in a visa application.

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

4. The applicant was invited to attend a hearing of the Tribunal that was scheduled for 28 November 2017. The applicant’s representative advised the Tribunal, in advance of the hearing, that the applicant would not be attending the hearing.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. 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.

8. Specifically, s.101 of the Act provides:

   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.

9. 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.

10. 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?

11. 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). The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the notice of cancellation which contains the same information as set out in the s.107 notice. The s.107 notice provided relevantly as follows:

    I consider that you did not comply with subsection 101(b) of the Migration Act when you lodged the following visa application:

    ·     Application for a subclass TU 572 Vocational Education Sector Student visa lodged with the department on 17 December 2014.

    On 17 December 2014 you lodged an application for a subclass TU 572 Vocational Education Sector Student visa via the online lodgement facility. In support of this application you provided details of your current Taiwanese passport [issued] in the name of Bo-sheng SHIH by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 1 September 2014.

    On 19 December 2014, the department was satisfied that you met the criteria for approval and granted you a subclass TU 572 Vocational Education Sector Student visa which is valid until 14 October 2016.

    At page two of that application form under, "Details of other names you have been known by'', you provided the name of Bo-gen SHIH.

    On page four of the application at "Declaration" you have answered yes' to the question, "the information I have supplied in this application is complete, correct and up-to-date in every detail".

    Additionally, in the Character Declarations section of the application form, you answered 'no’ to the following:

    Have you or any person included in this application to apply for  this visa,

    ·     Been removed or deported from another country (including Australia)?

    ·     Been excluded from or asked to leave any country (including Australia)?

    On 29 November 2015, information was provided to the Department, specifically that you have also been known by the name of Po-ken SHIH (dob:20/08/1972) and that you had changed your name  to Bo-sheng SHIH (2010811972). Both Po-ken SHIH (Taiwanese passport [number 2]valid to 23/07/2020) and Bo-sheng SHIH (Taiwanese passport [number 1][valid] to 10/09/2017) used the same Taiwanese personal number (E122105232) when applying for Australian visas.

    Information available to me, as a delegate for the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection shows that under the name of Po-ken SHIH your visa history is as follows:

    ·     On 3 June 2003 Po-ken SHIH arrived in Australia as the holder of a subclass TR 601 Visitor visa

    ·     Po-ken SHIH lodged and was granted several other Student visas while on shore following this initial visa

    ·     On 19 December 2011 Po-ken SHIH lodged a subclass TU 572 Vocation Education Sector visa which was refused on 11 April 2012. The application was reviewed by the Migration Review Tribunal who affirmed the delegate's decision on 22 November 2013.

    ·     Po-ken SHIH departed Australia on 19 December 2013.

    ·     Po-ken SHIH returned to Australia as the holder of a subclass UD 601 Visitor visa on 22 December 2013 and was refused immigration clearance and the visa was cancelled. Po-ken SHIH was detained and removed from Australia on 23 December 2013 and subsequently incurred a three year exclusion period.

    ·     On 21 March 2014 Po-ken SHIH applied for a subclass UC 457 Temporary Work (Skilled) visa as a dependent applicant. This application was refused on 15 August 2014 because Po-ken SHIH was subject to a three year exclusion period at the time.

    Department records also indicate that you returned to Australia under the name of Bo-sheng SHIH on your current passport [number 1] on 1 October 2014 as the holder of a subclass UD 601 Visitor visa. You then lodged a subclass TU 572 Vocational Education Sector Student visa on 17 December 2014 which was approved on 19 December 2014 and which is valid until 1 October 2016.

    I am satisfied that in addition to your current name that you have been previously known as Po-ken SHIH (dob: 20/08/1972). (Your current Taiwanese passport [number 1] [was] issued with the same personal number as the Taiwanese passport[number 2].) The passports for both identities were issued on the basis of Taiwanese ID card No E122105232. This indicates that both passport have been issued to the same person/identity and therefore you have been known by both names of Po-ken SHIH and Bo-sheng SHIH.

    Your current passport, which was issued on 10 September 2014, is valid for only three years. On the 'Bureau of Consular Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Republic of China (Taiwan)' website for applying for a Taiwanese passport, it states that replacements for lost passports are issued for three years, whereas all other Taiwanese passports except for children's passports which are issued for five years, are valid for ten years. This suggests that this latest passport was issued in replacement of a claimed lost passport.

    When you lodged your application for a subclass TU 572 Vocational Education Sector Student visa on 17 December 2014 you did not provide the above information in answer to the question on page one, "Details of other names you have been known by".  You provided the name of Bo-gen SHIH as an alias but did not mention the name Po-ken SHIH.

    As you did not provide correct answers to this question, you therefore appear to have not complied with subsection 101(b) of the Act.

    If this is the case, your current subclass TU 572 Vocational Education Student visa may be cancelled under section 109 of the Migration Act.

    Under your previous name of Po-ken SHIH you departed Australia on 19 December 2013 after your subclass TU 572 Vocational Educational Sector Student visa was refused by the department on 11 April 2012 and affirmed by the Migration review Tribunal on 22 November 2013.

    You returned to Australia as the holder of a subclass UD 601 Visitor visa on 22 December 2013 and you were refused entry. Your visa was cancelled and you were subsequently removed on 23 December 2013 by which you incurred a three year exclusion period from further entry to Australia.

    Information before the department indicates that since 7 June 2013 you have been a shareholder and director of an Australian company by the name of Ming International Pty Ltd in which you are actively working.

    It appears that you returned to Australia under the name of Bo-sheng SHIH because of your 'business interests' and since you were subject to a three year exclusion period under your previous name, you therefore changed your name and obtained a new passport to circumvent Australian border checking in order to facilitate your re-entry.

    Consequently, because you answered 'no' to the character declaration question regarding whether you had previously been removed from and excluded from or asked to leave Australia it appears that you have not complied with section 101(b) of the Act as you have provided incorrect answers to the questions in this application.

    If this is the case, your current subclass TU 572 Vocational Education Student visa may be cancelled under section 109 of the Migration Act.

12. The applicant’s representative provided a response to the s.107 notice on 19 August 2016. It indicates that, for personal reasons, the applicant decided to change his name. When he applied for the current Student visa he provided his migration agent with his previous name. It is claimed that it appears that the former migration agent may have made phonetic errors in transcribing the name which resulted in a spelling error in the name, which should have been spelled as ‘Po-ken’, and was instead dispelled ‘Bo-gen’. It is submitted that if the applicant intended to deceive the Department he would have not have listed any names.

13. In relation to questions regarding removal, deportation or exclusion, it is submitted that when the applicant arrived in Australia on 22 December 2013 he was not immigration cleared and therefore the applicant did not enter Australia. The applicant believes that he was denied entry to Australia but was not deported, removed or excluded. It is submitted that the applicant was confused by the question, especially the term ‘excluded’.

14. It is further submitted that the applicant did not believe that he was removed from Australia because he had paid for his return ticket home. He left voluntarily and therefore was not removed. It is submitted that ‘removed’ suggests the person is being forced to board an aircraft and depart Australia while being accompanied by Immigration Department officials and/or security guards.

15. It is submitted that deportation involves removing a permanent resident from the country that they are residing in. As the applicant was not a permanent resident of Australia and his departure was paid for by him, he was not deported.

16. In relation to whether the applicant had been excluded from Australia, it is submitted that the applicant’s denial of entry in December 2013 would have been limited to a select number of visas and would not represent an overall exclusion from Australia. The applicant was restricted from being granted certain visas but was not limited in being granted other visas, such as permanent visas. The applicant was, at no point, excluded from the entirety of Australia is a country.

17. It is submitted that, in terms of whether the applicant was asked to leave Australia, after he was denied entry, he chose to leave of his own accord and expense. This constitutes a denial of entry and would not represent the Department asking him to leave.  This would suggest that there was a choice available to the applicant, in contrast to the applicant being told unconditionally that he could not enter Australia. It is submitted that it is understandable that the applicant may have misunderstood the question.

18. It is submitted generally that the questions in the form in relation to this issue are vague and imprecise.

19. Based on these responses, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has acknowledged that the applicant had another name, Po-ken Shih, in addition to Bo-sheng Shih.

20. Considering all of the evidence, and noting the the failure of the applicant to attend the scheduled hearing to seek to respond to questions of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not satisfied with the various explanations submitted on the applicant behalf.

21. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intended to provide his prior name, Po-ken Shih, in response to the question in the visa application as to whether he was known by any other names. The applicant signed the application form. In addition, s.98 of the Act deems the applicant responsible for the contents of the application form, even if another person had completed the form. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the answer in the application form as to the other name of Bo-gen Shih is a phonetic mistake by the agent where he meant to write Po-ken Shih.

22. The Tribunal considers that the various incorrect responses provided in the application form were a deliberate attempt to obfuscate in relation to the past identity of the applicant, and the prior denial of entry by the applicant into Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that, if the applicant intended to deceive, then there would have been no response to this question.  The Tribunal considers that the response that was provided was likely an attempt to obfuscate the issue, by simply repeating (but with one letter missing) the name the applicant was using, to give the impression that the applicant had only ever had the one name.

23. The Tribunal considers, applying the normal meaning of the word and expression ‘removed’ and ‘exclude from’ that the applicant was both removed and excluded from Australia after his arrival on 22 December 2013. The Tribunal does not consider that this word or expression is vague or imprecise. The denial of entry and return to the applicant’s home country, in the Tribunal’s view, constitutes a removal from the country and, as the delegate notes, the applicant would have been accompanied by security officers to the airplane, supervising his departure. Notwithstanding that the applicant paid for his return ticket and did not ultimately object to returning, he did so because he was denied entry and was required to leave the country. The Tribunal considers that the applicant was removed from Australia.

24. The Tribunal also considers that the applicant was excluded from Australia. His denial of entry requiring him to leave the country on 23 December 2013 was an exclusion from Australia in terms of that specific attempt to enter the country. In addition, as indicated in the decision of the delegate, the applicant incurred an exclusion period of three years when his visa was cancelled on arrival on 22 December 2013. That represents an additional exclusion, whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant was not excluded in relation to all visa classes for all time he had been excluded from entering Australia at the time of lodging the Student visa application form on 17 December 2014.

25. For similar reasons, the Tribunal considers that the applicant had been asked to leave Australia after arrival on 22 December 2013.

26. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would have been confused to as to the implication, collectively, of questions asking whether he had been removed, deported, excluded from or asked to leave Australia. The Tribunal is of the view that, given that the applicant was removed from Australia when he arrived in December 2013, he would have been acutely conscious of these questions and that his denial of entry and requirement to leave the country fell within one or more, if not all, of the questions.

27. The Tribunal is not satisfied that responses to the various questions are a product of the applicant forming the legalistic and technical view that as he had not been immigration cleared that he was not technically in Australia and therefore and not been removed, excluded, deported or asked to leave.

28. In any event, claims by the applicant that he was confused in responding to the various questions are not consistent with the indication by the applicant that a migration agent assisted in the Student visa application. At the very least, the questions should reasonably have caused the applicant to discuss with his migration agent the appropriate answer to the character questions.  The clear advice that any migration agent would have provided would have been to answer the questions, ‘no’.

29. In summary, the migration history of the applicant is the refusal of the TU 572 visa in April 2012, upheld on review, his denial of entry on return to Australia in December 2013, the imposition of a three-year exclusion period, his denial of a UC 457 visa in August 2014 and his entry on a different name on a Visitor visa in October 2014, and subsequently using this name to apply for a TU 572 visa in December 2014.  It is readily apparent to the Tribunal on the basis of this history and the answers in the December 2014 application for the TU 572 visa that the applicant has sought, in a duplicitous manner, to enter Australia on a passport in a new name to circumvent past visa refusals and exclusions on his ability to enter Australia. The Tribunal considers that the applicant would have been fully aware of the incorrectness of answers relating to aliases and past removal or exclusion and the like from Australia.

30. The Tribunal finds that the applicant provided incorrect answers in the application form for the Student visa lodged on 17 December 2014 in not providing details as to other names used by the applicant and indicating that he had not been removed, excluded or asked to leave Australia in the past.

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

    Should the visa be cancelled?

32. 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).

33. 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: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Migration Regulations 1994. 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.

1. Whilst 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’. This policy requires delegates to also have regard to matters such as whether the visa would have been granted if the correct information had been given, whether there are persons in Australia whose visa would, or may, be automatically cancelled under s.140 of the Act, and whether the visa cancellation may result in Australia breaching its international obligations.

2. The provision of the correct information relating to the applicant’s previous name and the fact of removal, exclusion and being asked to leave in the application for the Student visa on 17 December 2014 prevented issues being raised at that point in time concerning the validity of the applicant’s entry to Australia in December 2013.  The correct information would very likely have affected the granting of the Student visa applied for on 17 December 2014, given the exclusion period in place.  The Tribunal notes that, although not incorrect information for the purpose of the ground for cancelation being made out, if correct information as to the applicant’s previous name had been provided in the application for the Visitor visa that he used to enter Australia on 20 December 2013, that would likely have affected the outcome of the application given the exclusion period that was in place.

3. These matters are significantly adverse to the applicant.

4. The content of the genuine document is not a relevant factor either beneficial or detrimental to the applicant.  The ground on which cancellation is made out is not connected with a bogus document.

5. The Tribunal is of the view that the granting of the Student visa lodged on 17 December 2014 would have been based in significant part on the incorrect information. It is unlikely that the visa would have been granted otherwise. The correct information concerning other names of the applicant would have been material in the granting of the Visitor visa that the applicant used to enter Australia on 1 October 2014.

6. These matters are significantly adverse to the applicant.

7. In terms of the circumstances in which non-compliance occurred, as indicated above, the Tribunal considers that the applicant was fully aware of the provision of the incorrect information and that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert the exclusion on the applicant’s ability to enter Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the circumstances of non-compliance demonstrate any mitigating or exceptional circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. 

8. In terms of the present circumstances of the applicant, in response to the s.107 notice, it is submitted that, since entering Australia in December 2014, and being approved for a Student visa, the applicant has continued his studies for the benefit of himself, his education institution and Australia, as he has contributed to the Australian community while in Australia studying. The Tribunal is prepared to accept these matters, for the purpose of this decision only.

9. In terms of the time elapsed since non-compliance, non-compliance occurred on 17 December 2014 when the Student visa was applied for.  The decision of the delegate indicates that non-compliance became evident to the Department on 23 April 2016. The Tribunal does not consider that the time elapsed since non-compliance is an overly relevant discretionary factor.

10. There is no evidence of any breaches of the law by the applicant since non-compliance.

11. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that there would be a hardship to the applicant if the visa remains cancelled, in that it will require the applicant to leave Australia, when he would prefer to stay here, as well as imposing restrictions on the ability of the applicant to apply for various visas onshore.

12. The Tribunal does not consider there are any specifically enumerated, or any other discretionary factors, that are particularly relevant to this matter.

13. In summary, the matters which lead to non-compliance have been egregious and deliberate in the Tribunal’s view. The weight of discretionary factors are adverse to the applicant, particularly the consequences of the breach, and the fact that there are no mitigating factors that explain it. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the cumulative impact of the factors adverse to the applicant are outweighed by any matters favourable to the applicant, including his conduct since his arrival in Australia, or any hardship to the applicant if the visa remains cancelled. Balancing all discretionary factors, The Tribunal considers that it should exercise its discretion to cancel the visa.

14. 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 be cancelled.

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa.

    David McCulloch
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT – Relevant Extracts from the Migration Act 1958:

    5Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

    97Interpretation

    In this Subdivision:

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

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

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

    98Completion of visa application

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

    99Information is answer

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

    100Incorrect answers

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

    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.

    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.