Zhou (Migration)

[2020] AATA 1946

Zhou (Migration) [2020] AATA 1946 (5 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Zhijian Zhou

CASE NUMBER:  1900726

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/6076743

MEMBER:David Barker

DATE:5 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa.

Statement made on 05 March 2020 at 3:36pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Bridging A (Class WA) – Subclass 010 (Bridging A) – granted in association with application for further student visa – further student visa refused – incorrect information and bogus document in previous student visa application – highest level of education, graduation certificate and national ID number – claim that previous migration agent provided information and document without applicant’s knowledge – no appearance at hearing – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1)(b), 101(b), 103, 107, 109(1), (2), 359A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41

CASE

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 010 (Bridging A) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant provided incorrect information in the visa application and bogus documents in support of the visa application. 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. On 11 February 2020 the applicant’s authorised representative contacted the Tribunal by email, which stated: ‘Zhou Zhijian informed me he doesn’t want to attend the hearing’. The Tribunal contacted the representative on 11 February 2020 to seek clarification as to whether the applicant wished to withdraw his review application, or whether he requested the Tribunal make a decision on the evidence currently before it. The Tribunal subsequently on 11 February 2020 received a further email from the representative, which stated: ‘The applicant informed me he wants to get decision letter’. The Tribunal has taken these communications from the applicant’s representative to be an indication the applicant has not withdrawn his review application and that he has declined the invitation to appear before the Tribunal to present evidence and arguments in support of the application.

4. The Tribunal is satisfied that it has received a request from the applicant, through his representative, asking the Tribunal to proceed to make a decision on the papers. This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   BACKGROUND

6. The applicant is a national of China and is 26 years of age. He applied for a Subclass 500 Student visa on 29 May 2017, which he was subsequently granted on 8 June 2017. This visa was valid until 27 September 2018. The applicant arrived in Australia on 19 June 2017. At the time of enrolment for the student visa lodged on 29 May 2017 the applicant was enrolled in a Graduate Diploma of Strategic Leadership at the Australia Institute of Business and Technology. He commenced this course on 7 August 2017 and completed it on 27 July 2018.

7. The applicant was granted a bridging visa WA-010 (BVA) in association with an application for a further student visa, which he lodged on 14 September 2018.

8. On 6 December 2018 the Department refused the applicant’s application for a further Subclass 500 Student visa on the basis that the criterion in PIC 4020(1) was not satisfied. This is a criterion that requires there be no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa or a visa that the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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?

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

    Section 107 Notice – Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of visa (NOICC)

13. In the delegate’s record of decision of whether to cancel under s.109 of the Act, a copy of which was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal, it is noted that on 29 May 2017, the applicant lodged an electronic application for a Subclass 500 Student visa. The application contains a number of questions which were particularised in the s.107 notice including:

    a)On page seven of the Form Application for a Student visa under the heading “Education” where it asked “Highest level of schooling” the applicant stated the following (in italics):

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

    Course name:  Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems

    Institution name:  Middlesex University

    Country of Institution:  UNITED KINGDOM

    b)On page eight of the Form Application for a Student visa under the heading “Employment history” the applicant stated the following (in italics):

    Employment status:      Other

    Is this your current employment situation?     Yes

    Give details:  Bachelor Graduate UK

    Date from:  Jan 2017

    c)On page 14 of the Form Application for a Student visa under the heading “Declaration” the applicant answered “Yes” to the following (in italics):

    Warning:
    Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.
    The applicants declare that they:

    “Have provided complete and correct information in every detail on this form, and on any attachments to it”

    “Understand that if documents are found to be fraudulent or information to be incorrect after the grant of a visa, the visa may subsequently be cancelled.”

14. In association with the student visa application lodged 29 May 2017 the applicant submitted a Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems graduation certificate issued by Middlesex University on 23 January 2017 which included the following details:

    Name:   Zhijian ZHOU

    Degree:  Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems

    Date of issue:             23 January 2017

    Academic Registrar:   Colin Davis (signature)

    Vice-Chancellor:        Michael Driscoll (signature)

    Certificate Number:    2245037

15. A statement for the Genuine Temporary Entrant Requirement was provided with the student visa application lodged 29 May 2017 which purported to demonstrate the applicant’s intention to study the relevant course and its significance to the value of his future, and as well referred to the relevance of his past education. In that written statement the applicant claimed that his academic background was in business information systems. He stated that he considered it unsafe to live in the United Kingdom and that his education there did not encompass the areas of strategic and leadership skills. He stated that he intended to study management in Australia to broaden his education in leadership and management and to improve his career opportunities in China as a business information systems consultant.

16. In support of the May 2017 student visa application, the applicant provided a Chinese National ID card number, 350206199309232791.

17. Based on the information provided by the applicant in the visa application, he satisfied the criteria of the Subclass 500 Student visa which was granted on 8 June 2017.

18. Integrity checks undertaken by the Department on the Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems graduation certificate found that the Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex University Michael Driscoll, a signatory to the certificate, retired from his position as Vice-Chancellor in 2015. The integrity checks have also identified that the number on the graduation certificate which should be unique to the applicant’s graduation certificate from Middlesex University, is in fact identical to multiple certificates submitted to the Department for other student visa applications.

    Response to the NOICC

19. On 20 December 2018, the Department sent the applicant a NOICC putting him on notice of reasons as to why there was consideration underway to cancel his BVA. On 2 January 2019, the applicant’s representative responded as follows:

    I am writing to respond the email you sent to me on 20 Dec 2018 regards of intention to cancel bridge visa A for applicant ZHOU Zhijian.

    I have contacted the applicant ZHOU Zhijian and informed him the bridge visa A intention to cancellation issue. He still wants me to continue this case. He is currently studying in Crown Institute and he will continue to study as long as he has study permission.

    Applicant gave all true documents including graduation certificate and ID copy to the agent in China'. He has no idea what that agent provided to case officer. He has never been to UK and he only has the ID which I provided when I lodged this student visa application. Please give him a chance to finish his study in Crown Institute.
    
    

20. Prior to this, in response to a NOICC pertaining to his previous, May 2017 student visa application, sent to the applicant on 19 June 2018, his current migration agent on 29 June 2018 responded and submitted that the applicant was shocked to discover a United Kingdom qualification was provided with the May 2017 application[1]. The current migration agent submitted that everything associated with the May 2017 application was provided to the Department by the nominated agent company who was at that time assisting the applicant and that the applicant himself was unaware of documents provided in support of his application. The current migration agent contended that the applicant had been unsuccessful trying to contact his previous migration agent in China to get an explanation and that he wished to continue his studies in Australia.

    [1] As discussed in the delegate’s record of decision of whether to cancel under s.109 of the Act, a copy of which was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.

21. The applicant provided no submissions or documents to the Tribunal in support of his application for review.

    Particulars of information put to the applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act

22. On 13 February 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to s.359A of the Act, inviting him to comment on or respond to particulars of information the Tribunal considered would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. The particulars of the information were that the BVA granted to the applicant on 14 September 2018 contained no conditions restricting his ability to study whilst on the bridging visa. In the response to the NOICC sent to the applicant by the Department on 2 January 2019, his migration agent stated, amongst other things, in an email response sent on 2 January 2019 that the applicant was currently studying in Crown Institute and would continue to study as long as he had study permission. Whereas, the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) Student record indicates that the Diploma of Accounting in which the applicant had been enrolled was cancelled on 4 February 2019 because the applicant notified the education provider that he had ceased study. The education provider, Crown Institute of Business and Technology, reports that the applicant’s last day of study was 23 November 2018 and that he withdrew from the course after his student visa was refused. The s.359A letter to the applicant noted that if he had maintained study in this course, he would have completed it on 1 December 2019.

23. The s.359A letter pointed out to the applicant that if the Tribunal prefers the information on the PRISMS records and that provided by Crown Institute of Business and Technology, it may find that some of the information provided in the 2 January 2019 response to the NOICC is not correct, which in turn raises concern as to the reliability of information provided in support of the applicant’s claims.

24. The s.359A letter asked the applicant to provide any comment or response by 27 February 2020. No response was received from the applicant by this date or as of the date of the Tribunal’s decision.

    Conclusion as to whether there was non-compliance as described in the NOICC

25. The Tribunal finds that the applicant provided incorrect information on the application for a student visa, lodged on 29 May 2017. The incorrect information is as follows:

    a)On page two of the application form he provided an incorrect Chinese National identification card number;

    b)On page seven of the application form he incorrectly and falsely claimed his highest level of schooling was a Bachelor degree, being a Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems from Middlesex University in the United Kingdom;

    c)On page eight of the application form he incorrectly and falsely claimed his employment status was a Bachelor Graduate from the United Kingdom;

    d)On page 14 of the application form the applicant acknowledged the information provided on the form and documents provided in association with the application were complete and correct.

26. The May 2017 student visa application claimed the applicant held a Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems from Middlesex University, United Kingdom. In support of this claim a graduation certificate from Middlesex University, issued 23 January 2017, was provided to the Department, along with a written statement attesting to the applicant’s study at Middlesex University and his period of residence in the United Kingdom. The graduation certificate is purportedly issued under the authority of a vice-chancellor of Middlesex University, who had been retired for a number of years as at the date it purports to have been issued in 2017. The applicant has not put forward any contention this is not a bogus document, or that the claims that he has this qualification and that he has studied at the higher education sector level in the United Kingdom are anything but incorrect, false and misleading information.

27. The applicant has not contested the suggestion he incorrectly described his employment status as a graduate with a bachelor qualification from the United Kingdom. His current agent has contended his Chinese national identification card number is other than that claimed on the May 2017 student visa application and in support of this claim has provided a copy of the current identification card.

28. The applicant has not taken up the opportunity to appear before the Tribunal at a hearing to put evidence or arguments regarding implications arising from the aforementioned concerns. He has also not responded to the s.359A letter which invited comment on concerns regarding the reliability of claims made on his behalf by his current migration agent and who has also submitted that the applicant had no idea what a previous agent provided in association with the May 2017 visa application. 

29. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant did not know anything about, and/or had nothing to do with the application for the May 2017 student visa application. Whilst the Tribunal accepts as plausible that the application was completed by an agent the applicant engaged for the purpose of assisting him with the visa application, the Tribunal finds that as the applicant had caused the Subclass 500 Student visa application to be filled on his behalf and pursuant to s.98 of the Act, he is taken to have completed the application. Consequently, on the basis of the available information, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) and s.103 by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

30. 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).

31. 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 Regulations. 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.

32. While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedures 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.

    Correct information

33. The correct information is that:

    ·    the applicant did not graduate with a higher education sector degree from Middlesex University with a Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems.

    ·    the applicant was not awarded a Bachelor of Science in Business Information Systems on 23 January 2017.

    ·    the applicant’s employment status is not a graduate from the United Kingdom.

    ·     the applicant’s Chinese National ID card number is 350181199309231793 and not 350206199309232791.

34. The Tribunal finds that the graduation certificate provided with the May 2017 student visa application is a bogus document and that incorrect answers were placed on the visa application.

35. In the view of the Tribunal, consideration weighs heavily towards the cancellation of the applicant’s bridging visa.

    The content of the genuine document (if any)

1. The Tribunal accepts that the integrity checks carried out by the Department have shown the graduation certificate from Middlesex University, issued 23 January 2017, is a bogus document, as defined in s.5(1)(b) of the Act. The certificate is signed and issued under the authority of a vice-chancellor of Middlesex University, who had been retired for a number of years as at the date it purports to have been issued in 2017. The graduation certificate is numbered with what should be a unique number, but which in fact is identical to the number used on multiple certificates submitted to the Department for other student visa applications.

2. In the view of the Tribunal, this consideration weighs heavily towards the cancellation of the applicant’s bridging visa.

   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

3. The decision on 8 June 2017 to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 Student visa so that he could study a graduate diploma was based, wholly or in part, on the incorrect information that the applicant had an existing higher education sector bachelor qualification from Middlesex University in the United Kingdom and a bogus document provided to support that claim. Incorrect information in a written statement provided with the visa application refers to the applicant’s purported undergraduate studies in the United Kingdom and his expertise in business information systems. Enrolment in a graduate study program is contingent on an applicant holding an undergraduate or other higher education sector qualification.

4. Further to this, an assessment of character and other required application criteria was undertaken on incorrect information about the applicant’s identity, being his Chinese national ID card number.

5. The Tribunal is satisfied and for the reasons explained that the applicant has provided incorrect answers in the visa application in order to demonstrate that he met criteria relevant to the grant of the visa.

6. In the view of the Tribunal, this consideration weighs heavily towards the cancellation of the applicant’s bridging visa.

   The circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

7. The circumstances of the non-compliance are that the bogus document, incorrect answers and incorrect information were provided with the applicant’s Subclass 500 Student visa application, lodged with the Department on 29 May 2017. The subsequent grant of that visa provided a pathway for the applicant to come to Australia. He subsequently applied for a further Subclass 500 Student visa on 14 September 2018 and was granted the BVA which is the focus of the current review on the same date and in association with the further Subclass 500 Student visa application.

8. At the time of the May 2017 visa application, the applicant had enrolled in a Graduate Diploma of Strategic Leadership. As discussed elsewhere in this decision, enrolment in a graduate study program required the applicant to hold an existing higher education sector qualification at the bachelor or higher level. The applicant has provided no evidence to demonstrate he holds this sort of qualification. Whilst I accept the applicant may have engaged the assistance of a migration agent in China to prepare the visa application, I do not consider it plausible the applicant had, as claimed in brief submissions from his current migration agent in June 2018 and January 2019, no knowledge of information or documents associated with the application. I am not satisfied the applicant came to Australia with no knowledge of the course in which he was enrolled to study and do not consider convincing any contention he would have not understood the basis on which he would appear to be qualified to undertake study at the graduate diploma level.

9. The applicant has presented no further evidence or arguments as to the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred.

10. The Tribunal is satisfied that the non-compliance was material to the grant of the student visa which the applicant applied for in May 2017. The Tribunal is satisfied the incorrect answers, incorrect information and bogus document were provided in an effort to facilitate the grant of a student visa to which the applicant was not entitled, primarily due to the lack of a higher education sector qualification. The grant of the Subclass 500 Student visa provided the applicant with a migration pathway to come to Australia on a temporary visa and to apply for a further student visa from onshore, resulting in the grant of his current BVA.

11. In the view of the Tribunal, this consideration weighs heavily towards the cancellation of the applicant’s bridging visa.

    The present circumstances of the visa holder

12. The applicant has presented no evidence or arguments as to his present circumstances, beyond the submission from his current migration agent that he has continued to study for as long as he will have ‘study permission’. The Tribunal does not accept this claim as contrary to the contention of the current migration agent, a review of the PRISMS student records show the applicant withdrew from the Diploma of Accounting course in which he had enrolled on 23 November 2018, a matter of eight weeks after this course had commenced in September 2018. There is no indication that the applicant has undertaken any study since November 2018, despite their being no condition attached to his BVA withholding ‘study permission’ from him. The applicant did not respond to the s.359A letter which invited his comment on or response to the information from his PRISMS record. It is of concern that his current migration agent would misrepresent his circumstances in the manner which would appear to be the case.

13. In the view of the Tribunal, this consideration weighs somewhat towards the cancellation of the applicant’s bridging visa.

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

14. The applicant responded to the NOICC through his current migration agent, who submitted that the applicant had sought to contact his previous migration agent in China. Due to concerns regarding the reliability of claims made by the applicant through his current migration agent, such as the claim that he was continuing to study in January 2019, the Tribunal is not convinced the applicant has endeavoured to contact his previous migration agent to follow up on the circumstances whereby incorrect information and a bogus document were provided with the May 2017 student visa application.

15. The applicant elected to not appear before the Tribunal at hearing to put evidence or arguments in support of his claims. He has made no submissions to the Tribunal in association with his review application and has not responded to particulars of information that are not favourable to his case when invited to do so through the s.359A letter.

16. There is no indication the applicant has accepted any responsibility for the non-compliance and when that factor is considered along with other factors discussed in this section, the Tribunal has formed the view that this consideration weighs heavily towards the cancellation of the applicant’s bridging visa.

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

17. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any other instances of non-compliance.

    The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

18. The relevant non-compliance took place when the applicant applied for a student visa in May 2017. Two and a half years have elapsed since the non-compliance took place.

19. The Tribunal gives this consideration no weight either in favour of the applicant, or towards the cancellation of the applicant’s bridging visa.

    Any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

20. The Tribunal is unaware of any breaches of the law by the applicant since the non-compliance.

21. The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in favour of the applicant.

    Any contribution made by the visa holder to the community

22. There are no submissions before the Tribunal in relation to this factor. The applicant’s migration agent responded briefly to the NOICC, but did not make submissions in relation to any contribution he has made to the community.

23. The Tribunal gives this consideration no weight in favour of the applicant.

    Other considerations

24. The Tribunal has had regard to the PAM3 guidelines which require delegates to consider three additional factors over and above the prescribed circumstances being the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

25. If the BVA is cancelled, the applicant would become an unlawful non-citizen and be liable for detention and removal from Australia under the provisions of the Act, if he failed to depart voluntarily. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that, in such circumstances, he would remain indefinitely in detention prior to his removal from Australia. I consider these consequences to be the intention of the Act and I give this consideration no weight in favour of the applicant.

26. The applicant has not claimed that, in the event of cancellation, there are any provisions in the Act which would prevent him from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal is not aware of any such provisions.

27. There is no indication that the applicant has any dependants or caring responsibilities of any children, or other parties in Australia. There is no indication that the interests of Australia, or any Australian citizen or permanent resident would be adversely impacted if the applicant’s visa were to be cancelled. The applicant has made no claims he would suffer hardship as a consequence of the cancellation of his BVA. The Tribunal has considered whether the current migration agent’s submissions regarding the applicant’s intention to maintain his studies in Australia to be a claim his academic progression may be disrupted. Given he has undertaken no study since November 2018, the Tribunal does not consider any such contention convincing.

28. There is nothing to suggest that there is anyone else in Australia whose visa would be cancelled under s.140 of the Act as a consequence of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

29. The applicant has not claimed that the visa cancellation would result in any breach of Australia’s international obligations, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal which would suggest that that is a possibility.

    Conclusion

30. 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

31. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 010 (Bridging A) visa.

    David Barker
    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.