YU (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5785

YU (Migration) [2020] AATA 5785 (23 October 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Renping YU

CASE NUMBER:  1921643

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/2234037

MEMBER:Antoinette Younes

DATE:23 October 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Statemen made on 23 October 2020 at 10:43am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Cancellation –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 visa –bogus documents – Graduation Certificate and ID card couldn’t be verified – applicant has not completed any courses– decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 103, 107,109, 359
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with s.103 of the Act, in that he provided bogus documents as defined in s.5(1) of the Act.  The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by telephone on 30 September 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

4. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone.

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. 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.

9. 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?

10. 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.

11. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.103 in that the applicant had provided bogus documents as defined in s.5(1) 0f the Act. 

12. Section 103 of the Act provides that:

    Bogus documents not to be given

    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

13. Section 5(1) defines a bogus document 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.

14. In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant information contained in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal.  Relevantly, the decision record indicates that:

    1)    On 19 July 2018, the applicant lodged an online application for a Student – Vocational (subclass 500) visa.  As part of the application, the applicant provided information relating to his parents.  He indicated that his father is Zhonghua YU (date of birth 23 February 1966) and that his mother is Qingyu LIN (date of birth 15 October 1967).  Under the heading Declarations, he confirmed that he had provided complete and correct information.

    2)    In support of the application, the applicant provided a Family Household Register (FHR) dated 18 July 2017 which was completed by Chen Liguo, a police officer, referring to the applicant’s parents as Zhonghua YU and Qingyu LIN.  The applicant provided a Graduation Certificate from Xiamen University dated 30 June 2012 indicating that the applicant had passed all courses of a three-year diploma study.  He also provided a National Identification Card number 350203198907019313.

    3)    The visa was granted on 31 July 2018 and the applicant entered Australia for the first time on 9 August 2018.

    4)    On 29 March 2019, Huayun LIN (date of birth 7 November 1968) lodged an application for a Visitor visa claiming to be the applicant’s mother.  As part of her application, she provided an FHR issued by Fuqing Yinxi Police Station showing her spouse as Huaming Yu and the applicant as their child who holds a National Identification Card number different to the one provided by the applicant.  According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT), the National Identification Card number is unique and remains the same even if a new card is issued.

    5)    The Department contacted Kaiyun Police Station in Xiamen to check the information contained the FHR provided by the applicant in support of the student visa application.  The police confirmed that there was no officer called Chen Liguo at Kaiyun Police Station.  Fuqing Yinxi Police Station confirmed that the content in the FHR provided by Huayin LIN is correct and consistent with the record held by the authorities.  Further Departmental checks revealed that the Graduation Certificate from Xiamen University dated 30 June 2012 could not be verified.

    Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOITCC)

15. On 24 May 2019, the Department sent to the applicant a NOITCC to which the applicant responded on 6 June 2019, essentially requesting an extension of time to respond.  The Department responded on 7 June 2019 to the applicant’s request advising that there were no provisions in the Act to allow for an extension of time and confirmed that a response was required by 18 June 2019, but no response was received.

    FINDINGS & REASONS

16. The documents at issue provided by the applicant in support of the student visa application are the FHR dated 18 July 2017 which was claimed to have been completed by Chen Liguo, a police officer, referring to the applicant’s parents as Zhonghua YU and Qingyu LIN, the Graduation Certificate from Xiamen University dated 30 June 2012 claiming that the applicant had passed all courses of a three-year Diploma study, and the National Identification Card number 350203198907019313.

17. As noted earlier, subsequent Departmental checks revealed that the information contained in those three documents is incorrect; Kaiyun Police Station confirmed that there was no officer called Chen Liguo at Kaiyun Police Station.  Fuqing Yinxi Police Station confirmed that the the FHR provided by Huayin LIN is a genuine document containing information consistent with the record held by the authorities, which meant that the information provided by the applicant is incorrect.  The information received from Fuqing Yinxi Police Station confirms that the applicant’s correct National Identification number is different to the one provided by the applicant.  The Graduation Certificate from Xiamen University dated 30 June 2012 could not be verified.

18. During the hearing, the applicant stated that a migration agent lodged the visa application and that the applicant did not know whether the documents were true or false.  He stated that if the Department had confirmed that the documents were bogus, he apologises.  The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that the Tribunal considers the provision of bogus to be serious and that the ground for cancellation appears to exist.  The applicant did not dispute that the documents were bogus and essentially stated that he did not know.  He said he would like to study in Australia.

19. The Tribunal sent to the applicant a s.359A letter advising that there is information in the Departmental file that as at April 2019, Huaming YU (the applicant’s father) has been onshore since 2011 and is unlawful. The Tribunal advised that the information is relevant because it suggests that the applicant had intentionally provided the bogus documents, particularly the Family Household Register (FHR) dated 18 July 2017 and the National Identification Card number 350203198907019313 in order to mislead the Australian authorities about his father’s identity to avoid relevant checks being undertaken concerning his father’s migration history. The Tribunal indicated that this raises doubts about the applicant’s claims that he did not know that the documents were bogus.  The Tribunal indicated that Huaming YU’s migration history is adverse and if the father’s true identity had been revealed, the student visa application would have been scrutinised much more closely and potentially refused for failing to meet visa criteria such as the Genuine Temporary Entrant requirement.  The applicant’s response was due on 21 October 2020, but he did not respond.

20. On the evidence, in relation to the FHR dated 18 July 2017 which was claimed to have been completed by Chen Liguo, a police officer, referring to the applicant’s parents as Zhonghua YU and Qingyu LIN, the Tribunal finds that the document contains incorrect information about the applicant’s parents as well as the alleged officer issuing the document.  The Tribunal finds that the document is bogus in that it is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so.  In relation to the Graduation Certificate from Xiamen University dated 30 June 2012 claiming that the applicant had passed all courses of a three-year Diploma study, the Tribunal finds that the document contains incorrect information in that the applicant did not pass any three-year course or complete a diploma course.  The Tribunal finds that the document is bogus in that it purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the applicant, or it is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so.  Similarly, the Tribunal finds that the National Identification Card number 350203198907019313 provided by the applicant contains incorrect information and that it is a bogus document in that it purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the applicant or that it is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so.

21. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that in support of the student visa application the applicant provided three bogus documents as defined in s.5(1) of the Act, namely, the National Identification card, the FHR and the graduation certificate. By doing so he has breached s.103 of the Act and consequently, the ground for cancellation exists.

22. For those reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

23. 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).

24. 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).

25. The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations. Briefly, they are:

    ·     the correct information

26. The correct information is that the applicant’s National Identification number is not 350203198907019313. The correct information is that there was no police officer by the name ‘Chen Liguo’ at Kaiyun Police Station claimed to have been the officer who had completed the FHR on 18 July 2017 and that the applicant’s parents’ names are not Zhonghua YU and Qingyu LIN.  The correct information is that the applicant did not complete a course at Xiamen University or graduate on 30 June 2012.

27. The Tribunal gives this aspect significant weight in favour of cancellation.

    ·     the content of the genuine document (if any)

28. There is no issue relating to a genuine document.

29. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

    ·     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

30. In order to be granted the student visa, the applicant had to meet the visa criteria.  The applicant’s correct identity details, details of his family composition, parents’ circumstances and past studies are all relevant to the assessment of whether the applicant met the criteria.  The Tribunal is satisfied that had the delegate become aware of the correct information, the application would have been scrutinised much more closely. The Tribunal is satisfied that the father’s migration history and the graduation certificate are directly relevant to the assessment by the delegate of the visa criteria, such as the Genuine Temporary Entrant requirement.  A primary applicant for a Subclass 500 visa needs to demonstrate that he or she is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

    ·they intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to their circumstances, their immigration history, the intentions of a parent/guardian/spouse (if the applicant is a minor), and any other relevant matter

    ·they intend to comply with any conditions of the visa, having regard to their record of compliance with any conditions of previously held visas and their stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject, and

    ·of any other relevant matter.[1]

    [1] cl 500.212.

31. The expression ‘genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily’ has been subject to judicial consideration in the context of the equivalent pre 1 July 2016 student visa criteria. It requires that the applicant must unqualifiedly intend his or her stay to be temporary.[2]  In Saini v MIBP Judge Cameron held that an intention to remain in Australia if qualified to do so at the end of the student visa, would amount to the lack of an intention to stay temporarily, because the intention to stay temporarily would not be unqualified.[3] In upholding his Honour’s judgment, Justice Logan held that what is required is an evaluation of intention at the time of decision, and if at this time there is a settled intention to later seek a visa that will lead other than to temporary residence, that intention is not consistent with an intention genuinely to stay temporarily.[4]

    [2] Saini v MIBP [2015] FCCA 2379 at [23], upheld on appeal in Saini v MIBP [2016] FCA 858.

    [3] Saini v MIBP [2015] FCCA 2379 at [23].

    [4] Saini v MIBP [2016] FCA 858 at [30]. Justice Logan expressly disagreed with the contrary interpretation of this criterion in Khanna v MIBP [2015] FCCA 1971. While Khanna was overturned on appeal in MIBP v Khanna [2016] FCA 142, that judgment did not expressly address the construction of cl 572.223(1)(a).

32. When determining whether the genuine temporary entrant criterion is met, decision makers must have regard to Ministerial Direction No 69 Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications (Direction No 69). Direction No 69 refers to a series of factors which must be considered by decision makers, set out under headings corresponding with the matters set out in cl. 500.212. Broadly speaking, these cover:

    ·       the applicant’s circumstances in their home country – that is

    -whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not studying in their home country

    -the extent of personal ties to their home country

    -the economic circumstances of the applicant

    -military service commitments

    -political and civil unrest

    ·       the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia – that is

    -the applicant’s ties with Australia

    -evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme

    -whether the student visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence

    -whether the primary and secondary applicants have entered ‘a relationship of concern’ for student visa purposes[5]

    [5] That is, a contrived relationship.

    -the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and their intended course of study and the associated education provider

    ·       the value of the course to the applicant’s future – that is

    -whether the proposed course is consistent with the applicant’s current level of education and whether it will assist the applicant’s employment prospects in the home country

    -the relevance of the course to the student’s past or future employment

    -remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in a country other than Australia as a result of the study

    ·       the applicant’s immigration history – that is

    -previous visa applications for Australia and other countries

    -previous travel to Australia and other countries

    ·       the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant (if the applicant is a minor and is a primary or secondary applicant for a subclass 500 visa)

    ·       any other relevant matters.

33. Although, Direction No 69 indicates that it should not be used as a checklist, but rather that the matters it lists are intended to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole and reaching a finding about whether they satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.[6] Direction No 69 makes clear that, in addition to the factors it specifies, decision makers should take into account any other relevant information provided by the applicant or otherwise available, and consider whether further inquiries should be undertaken.[7]

    [6] Direction No 69, Part 2 at [1].

    [7] Direction No 69, Part 2 at [2]–[3].

34. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the father’s migration history and the graduation certificate are directly relevant to the assessment of the visa criteria, including the Genuine Temporary Entrant requirement.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on the bogus documents

35. The Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight in favour of cancellation.

    ·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

1. The non-compliance occurred when the applicant provided bogus documents in support of the visa application.  The relevant documents provided by the applicant in support of the student visa application relate to the FHR dated 18 July 2017 which was claimed to have been completed by Chen Liguo, a police officer, referring to the applicant’s parents as Zhonghua YU and Qingyu LIN, the Graduation Certificate from Xiamen University dated 30 June 2012 claiming that the applicant had passed all courses of a three-year Diploma study, and the National Identification Card number 350203198907019313.

2. The applicant claimed he did not know that the documents were bogus.  However, as mentioned in the s.359A letter, the information that Huaming YU (the applicant’s father) has been onshore since 2011 and is unlawful is of relevance as it suggests that the applicant had intentionally provided the bogus documents, particularly the Family Household Register (FHR) dated 18 July 2017 and the National Identification Card number 350203198907019313 in order to mislead the Australian authorities about his father’s identity to avoid relevant checks being undertaken concerning his father’s migration history. The Tribunal is satisfied that this raises doubts about the applicant’s claims that he did not know that the documents were bogus.  The Tribunal gives weight to the adverse information about the father and on balance the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant did not know. 

3. The Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight in favour of cancellation.

   ·     the present circumstances of the visa holder

4. The Tribunal referred to the delegate’s decision record noting that the applicant had deferred his studies prior to the cancellation of the visa.  The applicant stated that last year he had an accident when he was assaulted and needed an operation.  The Tribunal asked if he has any supporting evidence and he said he did know what to say.  However, the Tribunal observes that there is information on the Departmental file referring to this incident which appears to have occurred on or about 12 March 2019. 

5. The applicant stated that he stopped studying in March 2019, prior to the cancellation.  He confirmed that he has not completed any courses since his arrival in Australia.  He told the Tribunal that he lives alone in Australia and that his mother’s application for the Visitor visa was refused.

6. On the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant suffered an assault incident on or about 12 March 2019 and that he stopped studying subsequently.  The Tribunal acknowledges that this was a difficult time for the applicant.

7. The Tribunal gives this consideration weight in the applicant’s favour.

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

8. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has attempted to correct the record.

9. The Tribunal gives this aspect weight in favour of cancellation.

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

10. There is no evidence of any other instances of non-compliance.

11. The Tribunal gives this aspect weight in favour of the applicant.

    ·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

12. The non-compliance occurred when the applicant lodged the student visa application on 19 July 2018, over two years ago. 

13. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that during this time, the applicant has formed notable connections in Australia or that this period has been significant for the applicant.

14. The Tribunal gives this aspect weight in favour of cancellation.

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

15. There is no evidence of any breaches of the law.

16. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

    ·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.

17. There is no information before the Tribunal that the applicant has contributed to the Australian community.

18. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

19. 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.

20. 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’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

    ·whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and subject to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

21. In case of cancellation and unless other arrangements are made, the applicant could be detained and removed from Australia, under ss.189 and 198 of the Act.  He would also be impacted by s.48 of the Act and PIC 4013.

22. The Tribunal considers those potential consequences to be intended by the legislation and in the applicant’s case, they do not weigh in his favour.

    ·whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

23. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that there would be any consequential cancellation. 

24. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

    ·whether any international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation, such as non-refoulement obligations, family unity principles or the obligation to consider the best interests of the child.   

25. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that Australia would be in breach of any of its international obligations, such as non-refoulement obligations in the event of cancellation. 

26. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

    ·any other relevant matters, including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members.

27. The applicant has not made any submissions in this regard.  However, the Tribunal appreciates that the visa cancellation could result in emotional, psychological, and potentially financial hardship as the applicant would not be able to continue his studies in Australia.  The Tribunal gives those matters some weight in the applicant’s favour.

28. There are no other matters requiring consideration.

    Concluding remarks

29. The Tribunal has carefully considered the material before it individually and cumulatively. 

30. There are limited aspects in the applicant’s favour.  On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence weighs heavily in favour of cancellation.

31. 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

32. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

    Antoinette Younes

    
    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.

    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.