Zhang (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3402

Zhang (Migration) [2020] AATA 3402 (29 June 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Mengkuan Zhang

CASE NUMBER:  1820428

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/777646

MEMBER:Antoinette Younes

DATE:29 June 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 29 June 2020 at 10:48am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – providing incorrect information in the visa application – bogus document – overseas university qualification – allegations of misconduct by former migration agent – applicant’s English courses in Australia not completed – cancelled visa would have expired – decision under review affirmed       

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 101, 103, 107, 109
Migration Regulations 1994, r 2.41

CASES

MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for 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 ss.101 and 103 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 on 23 June 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.  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.

4. At the beginning of the hearing, the applicant advised the Tribunal that his current representative did not notify him of the hearing date and time.  The Tribunal notes that the representative responded to the hearing invitation indicating that the applicant wishes to attend.  The Tribunal confirmed in the course of the hearing and on multiple occasions that the applicant had no issues with proceeding with the hearing.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent who did not attend the hearing.

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.  The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with ss.101 and 103 of the Act. 

11. Section 101 provides that:

    Visa 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.

12. Section 103 provides that:

    Bogus documents not to be given etc.

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

    * 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).

13. The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. 

14. In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal discussed the following matters referred to in the delegate’s decision:

    ·On 6 October 2017, the applicant lodged an application for a Student (subclass 500) visa (student visa application).

    ·On page 8 in response to the question in the application relating to details of the applicant’s highest level of schooling completed outside Australia, the applicant provided the following details:

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

    Course name:  Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics

    Institution name:  University of Colorado

    Country of institution:   UNITED STATES

    ·On page 9 in response to the question in the application form about employment details, the applicant provided the following details

    Employment Status:  Other

    Is this the visa holder’s current employment status?            Yes

    Give details:  Graduate Student

    Date From:  July 2017

    ·On page 14, in response to the Declaration, the applicant confirmed that:

    ·“Giving false or misleading information is serious.  The applicants declare that they: Have provided complete and correct information in every detail on this form, and on any attachments to it.”

    ·“The applicants declare that they: Understand that if documents are found to be fraudulent or information to be incorrect after the grant of the visa, the visa may subsequently be cancelled.”

15. In support of the student visa application, the applicant provided a certificate issued from Colorado University stating that he had been awarded on 11 July 2017 the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics.  The document contained the applicant’s name and various signatures, including that of Dean Todd T. Gleeson.  The applicant also provided a statement in support of the Genuine Temporary Entrant Requirement amongst other things, referring to his academic background and intention to study in Australia to enhance his career opportunities in China.

16. On the basis of the information provided, the applicant was granted the student visa on 31 October 2017.

17. Subsequent to the grant, the Department undertook integrity checks regarding the applicant’s claimed Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics degree from Colorado University.  The checks revealed that Dean Todd T. Gleeson had retired from his position five years earlier, that is in 2012. Moreover, the certificate noted that it was issued on the 139^th year of the University’s establishment, however 2017 was its 141^st year as the University was founded in 1876.  It was noted that the signatories had no printed name to identify them, inconsistent with an official document.  The Department formed the view that it appeared that the applicant had provided incorrect information in the application for a student visa.

18. On 21 May 2018, the Department sent to the applicant a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOITCC) to which the applicant, through a former-representative, responded on 4 and 8 June 2018.

19. In the submissions of 4 June 2018, the representative referred to background information about lodgement of the student visa application, and raised the following matters:

    ·The non-compliance was a result of the conduct of the migration agent (former) engaged on behalf of the applicant to lodge the student visa. The applicant provided “true documents” and he did not provide any bogus documents to the migration agent. The migration agent did not inform the applicant that a visa application had been lodged and only informed him of the grant.

    ·The documents were not provided by the applicant to the migration agent and despite repeated requests by the applicant for a copy of the visa application and supporting documents, the applicant has not received any from that agent.

    ·The applicant is a genuine student and his attendance and progress are satisfactory. The applicant has complied to the best of his ability with his obligations under the Act. Had the applicant been aware of any incorrect information or bogus documents, he would have immediately notified the Department. Prior to receipt of the NOITCC, the applicant was instructing the representative to lodge a Freedom of Information request to obtain the visa application and supporting documents.

    ·There are no other instances of non-compliance by the applicant and he has not breached any laws. The documents and information referred to were not the sole reason for the decision to grant the visa. The cancellation of the visa would result in serious mandatory legal consequences in circumstances where the non-compliance was not deliberate.

20. In a letter of 8 June 2018, addressed by the former representative to the former migration agent, the representative referred to the applicant’s instructions to that firm to lodge the student visa. In essence, the representative suggested to the firm that they have breached the Act as well as the Migration Agents’ Code of Conduct and that they were not authorised to provide incorrect information or bogus documents to the Department.

21. The former representative also provided various documents including identity documents, electrical license, a CoE for the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) course to commence on 8/1/2018 and end on 28/12/2018, a letter from the Australia Institute of Business & Technology dated 1 June 2018 referring to the applicant’s satisfactory progress and being a “good student” in the course of Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning), file notes, a Graduation Certificate from the Secondary Vocational School of Hebei Province referring to the applicant’s graduation certificate from high school and his studies in automobile operation and maintenance from September 2006 until June 2009,  translated text messages, letters of support, amongst other things referring to the applicant’s mechanical skills, trustworthiness, collegiality and hard-work.

22. In the course of the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that prior to the NOITCC, he did not know that incorrect information had been provided.  He stated that he provided genuine documents to the former representative whom he met through a friend.  He said he paid that representative 160,000 Chinese Yuan (about AUD 33,000).  The Tribunal noted that the sum seems excessive for a student visa application.  The Tribunal questioned the applicant about whether any action had been taken against the former agent.  The applicant said that his former representative complained to the migration agent who lodged the application.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he knows about any outcome and he confirmed that he does not know.  The Tribunal indicated that it would further consider those matters. 

23. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that even if the Tribunal were to accept his version of events, from a legal perspective, he is responsible for the provision of information in the visa application.  Sections 98 and 99 are relevant to this matter.

    Section 98 provides that:

    Completion 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.

    Section 99 provides that:

    Information 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.

24. The Tribunal has noted the applicant’s explanations and submissions.  Although the Tribunal has doubts that the applicant did not know of, or cause the incorrect information to be provided, the Tribunal accepts this as being plausible.  However, pursuant to ss.98 and 99, the applicant is taken to have provided the information.

25. On the evidence, the Tribunal finds that contrary to the information provided by the applicant in the student visa application in response to the relevant questions on pages 8, 9 and 14, the applicant did not hold a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics degree awarded from Colorado University and that he did not graduate in July 2017.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant provided incorrect answers as contemplated by s.101 of the Act.

26. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics degree from Colorado University is not a genuine document.  The Tribunal finds that it is a bogus document as defined in s.5(1) of the Act, namely:

    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.

27. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics degree is a bogus document in that it is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who has no authority to do so, and it was not issued in respect of the applicant. 

28. 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?

29. 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). 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).

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

    ·     the correct information

31. The correct information is that contrary to the information provided by the applicant, the applicant does not hold a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics degree awarded from Colorado University in July 2017 and that the document is not a genuine document.

32. The applicant has claimed that he had no knowledge that incorrect information and a bogus document had been provided in the student visa application. He claimed that an agent lodged the application and the Tribunal accepts that the application was completed by an agent.  The Tribunal has doubts about the applicant’s claims that he was not responsible for or had knowledge of the provision of the incorrect information.  In any event ss.98 and 99 of the Act are enlivened.

33. The claimed Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics degree from Colorado University is not a genuine document.  The Tribunal has found that it is a bogus document as defined in s.5(1) of the Act; it is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who has no authority to do so, and it was not issued in respect of the applicant. 

34. The provision of correct information plays a significant role in maintaining quality control, integrity and proper standards in the visa program.  It is a legislative intention that correct information is provided in visa applications and there are intended consequences such as potential visa cancellation in case of non-compliance. 

35. The Tribunal considers the provision of incorrect information and a bogus document to be serious.  The Tribunal gives this aspect significant weight in favour of cancellation.

    ·     the content of the genuine document (if any)

36. The claimed Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics degree from Colorado University is a bogus document as defined in s.5(1) of the Act and the Tribunal has given this aspect significant weight in favour of cancellation.

37. There is no ‘genuine’ document relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration.  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

38. In order to be granted the student visa, the applicant had to meet various visa criteria and the delegate had to consider all the relevant material, including the claimed degree from Colorado University to determine whether the applicant met those criteria, such as the genuine temporary entrant criterion and the English language requirements.  Based on the information and material provided by the applicant, the delegate was satisfied that the applicant possessed tertiary qualifications and that he met the relevant criteria.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision to grant the student visa was based, wholly or partly on the information that the applicant had completed the Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Economics from Colorado University and the bogus certificate provided.

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

    ·the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

40. The non-compliance occurred when incorrect information and a bogus document were provided in the student visa application lodged on 6 October 2017. 

41. The applicant has provided documents in support of his contentions that he was not aware that incorrect information and a bogus document had been provided, including translated text messages and a copy of a letter of complaint to the migration agent who lodged the application.

42. The Tribunal is of the view that allegations of fraud are serious, and it is odd, on his own evidence, that the applicant did not know of the outcome or status of the complaint.  Based on the available material, the Tribunal does not know of the exact nature and extent of the former agent’s conduct in this matter and in any event, under ss.98 and 99, the applicant is responsible for the provision of the information.

43. The Tribunal has noted the applicant’s explanations and submissions but has decided to give this aspect weight in favour of cancellation.

    ·the present circumstances of the visa holder

44. The applicant gave evidence that he has a sister in Australia and that his parents are in China. 

45. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he has completed any course in Australia and he confirmed that although he has studied English, he has not completed any course.  The Tribunal discussed the document from the Australia Institute of Business & Technology dated 1 June 2018 referring to the applicant’s satisfactory progress and being a “good student” in the course of Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning).  The applicant confirmed that he has not studied in this course and has focused on English studies.  The Tribunal has noted the inconsistent information in the letter from Australia Institute of Business & Technology and has decided to give the applicant’s oral evidence more weight.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been studying English and that he has not completed any courses.  The Tribunal raised concerns with the applicant about the fact that he has not completed any courses or even commenced the course noted in the CoE, that is, the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) course which was due to commence on 8/1/2018 and end on 28/12/2018.  He said he wants to study that course but has focused on English.  He said that the cancellation of the visa has had an impact on the studies.

1. The applicant gave evidence that he is working, and he has provided evidence in support by way of references.  The Tribunal asked the applicant about his work and he stated that he works in electrical generators’ repairs.  The Tribunal queried the relevance of this work to the course of the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning).  The applicant said he is a genuine student who attends classes (English) regularly. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has pursued studies in English, but this is not the course noted in the CoE.

2. The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s circumstances but does not consider the them as warranting the favourable exercise of discretion.  The Tribunal further observes that had the visa not been cancelled, it would have expired in March 2019.  The student visa granted is a temporary visa with an intention of temporary stay in Australia to undertake a relevant course or courses.  Although limited work is permitted, the main purpose of the student visa is to allow the holder to study in Australia and depart within the validity period of the visa, unless other arrangements are made.

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

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

4. The applicant responded to the NOITCC and the Tribunal gives this aspect weight in the applicant’s favour.

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

5. There is no evidence of other instances of non-compliance.

6. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

   ·the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

7. The non-compliance occurred on 6 October 2017 on lodgement of the student visa application.  The Tribunal does not consider this timeframe to be significant or warranting favourable consideration.

8. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

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

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

10. The Tribunal gives this aspect neutral weight.

    ·any contribution made by the holder to the community.

11. The applicant has made submissions that he has contributed through his work.  The Tribunal notes the work references provided and accepts that the applicant is considered to be a good and valuable employee.  The Tribunal acknowledges that contribution and gives this aspect weight in the applicant’s favour.

12. While the above 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.

13. 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 liable 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

14. The cancellation of the applicant’s visa could result in the applicant’s detention and potential removal from Australia.  He could however make travel arrangements and voluntarily depart Australia.  The applicant would also be impacted by s.48 of the Act which means that he may face difficulties in applying in Australia for any further visas. 

15. The applicant could apply for an Australian visa offshore and any such application would be assessed on its merits, including any application of Public Interest Criterion 4013 (PIC 4013).  The Tribunal considers potential detention and removal from Australia as well as the s.48 bar and PIC 4013 to be intended legislative consequences. 

16. The Tribunal gives this aspect limited weight in the applicant’s favour.

    ·whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

17. There is no evidence of any consequential cancellation. 

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

    ·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.   

19. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that any children would be impacted or that Australia would be in breach of any of its non-refoulement obligations in case of cancellation. 

20. 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.

21. The applicant gave evidence he came to Australia to study and he has, although he has not completed any courses.  He claimed that he paid the former migration agent over $30,000.  The Tribunal is mindful that the cancellation of the visa would cause a degree of financial, psychological, and emotional hardship to the applicant. The Tribunal gives this consideration weight in the applicant’s favour.

22. The Tribunal is not aware of any other relevant matters.

    CONCLUDING REMARKS

23. The Tribunal has carefully considered the material before it individually and cumulatively. The Tribunal is satisfied that the totality of the considerations weighs heavily in favour of cancellation.

24. 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.  Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

25. 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.

    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.