O'Loan (Migration) [2021] AATA 3597 (20 September 2021)

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:	Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:	Ms Rachel Louise O'Loan
CASE NUMBER:	2100581
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):	BCC2020/2033166 
MEMBER:	K. Chapman
DATE:	20 September 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:	Brisbane
DECISION:	The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa. 

Statement made on 20 September 2021 at 5:58pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Working Holiday (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) – incorrect information in application for further visa – specified work in regional area for 3 months – integrity checks – no positions available because of COVID-19 pandemic – paid for assistance from person known to boyfriend – initial claim to have been unaware of information in application later conceded – prevalence of COVID0-19 in home country – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 98, 101(b), 107, 109(1)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41 

CASES
Botha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 362
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 Home Affairs on 18 January 2021 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’). This is the second Subclass 417 visa held by the applicant. She is a national of The United Kingdom, hailing from Northern Ireland. 
2.  	The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis the applicant had not complied with sub-section 101(b) of the Act, in that she incorrectly declared in her visa application she had performed 3 months of specified work in a regional area, when integrity checks confirmed she had not done so. It is worth pausing to reflect that generally an applicant is not entitled to the grant of a second Subclass 417 visa without having performed 3 months of specified work in a regional area. 
3.  	On 22 December 2020, the applicant was issued with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of her Subclass 417 visa on the basis that she failed to comply with sub-section 101(b) of the Act. She substantively responded to the NOICC on 11 January 2011 by way of a submission, including a Statutory Declaration, employment contract and media articles. The applicant was assisted by a registered migration agent at that time. On 18 January 2021, the delegate cancelled the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa. On 19 January 2021, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the visa cancellation decision, providing a copy of that decision with her application. 
4.  	The applicant was offered an in-person review hearing scheduled for 15 September 2021, however she requested to attend by telephone and the Tribunal granted her request. The applicant appeared by telephone before the Tribunal on 15 September 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. She confirmed she was comfortable participating in the hearing by telephone and that no other person would give evidence at the hearing. The applicant participated in the hearing by telephone from Brisbane, where she is presently residing. 
5.  	For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.  
ISSUES AND LAW
6.  	The issues in the present case are whether the grounds for cancellation are made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. 
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.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence at the review hearing 
9.  	The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal at hearing may be summarised as follows. She agreed that she received the NOICC and responded to it. The applicant indicated she had read and understood the delegate’s visa cancellation decision. She outlined her tertiary education in Northern Ireland, experience in the hospitality and administration sectors and that she travelled to Australia with her boyfriend in order to experience this country. The applicant advised she is presently working in an administration role in Brisbane city, two days per week in the office and three days remote. 
10.  	Initially following arrival in Australia in late 2019 the applicant visited Melbourne, then lived and worked in Sydney. She was then employed in an Information Technology role. The applicant had friends from home already living in Australia, some were on their second or third Subclass 417 visa and some had obtained sponsored Australian visas. The COVID-19 pandemic struck shortly after the applicant’s arrival in Australia. She and her boyfriend wanted to each obtain a second Subclass 417 visa, so as to remain in Australia. The applicant contended that in early 2020 she attempted to contact employers in the agricultural sector, however they did not have positions available for her. The applicant and her boyfriend did not wish to return to Northern Ireland in 2020, fearing the impact of COVID-19 in that location. She advised that she took help from a man at her boyfriend’s workplace with regard to obtaining a second Subclass 417 visa.
11.  	When asked by the Tribunal to outline the particulars of the assistance she received with her visa application, the applicant initially provided scant detail. When pressed by the Tribunal to provide the particulars of the individual who assisted her with the visa application, the applicant advised that she did not know him as he was a man from her boyfriend’s workplace. In due course, the applicant contended that her boyfriend (Mr Chris Brennan) obtained an email address from his workplace that they used to make contact for assistance with their visa applications. The applicant denied that she had ever had a conversation with her boyfriend regarding the identity of the person who provided the email address to him. The Tribunal formed the view that the applicant was being evasive in this portion of her evidence and it does not accept that she would never have discussed the identity of the individual from Mr Brennan’s workplace with him. 
12.  	The applicant’s central contention is that she was desperate to remain in Australia when COVID-19 struck, she knew it was not the right thing to do to rely upon an unknown person to assist with her visa, however she didn’t ask too many questions. When the Tribunal canvassed further particulars of her visa application with the applicant, she initially maintained that she never filled in the application form and was unaware of its contents regarding the claims made of specified work in a regional area. The Tribunal canvassed with her the provisions of s.98 of the Act pertaining to responsibility for information contained in visa applications. In due course, the applicant revealed that she and Mr Brennan each paid $1,000 to the unidentified individual who prepared their visa applications. Only when pressed by the Tribunal did the applicant take responsibility for the information that was submitted upon her behalf. She confirmed to the Tribunal she knew she had to perform 3 months specified work in a regional area to obtain the second subclass 417 visa and that she had not done so. The applicant also conceded that the claims of specified work identified by the delegate in the visa cancellation decision were untrue. 
13.  	The Tribunal raised with the applicant that the evidence before it might tend to suggest that the ground for cancellation of her visa exists in that incorrect answers have been given or provided in the manner outlined by the delegate. She was invited to comment and conceded this matter. The applicant added that she wishes to remain in Australia for as long as possible so she can avoid returning to Ireland with its COVID-19 problem. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that her failure to provide correct information in relation to her second Subclass 417 visa application might tend to weigh in favour of cancelling her visa. The applicant was invited to comment and indicated that she understood this.
14.  	The Tribunal raised with the applicant that the failure to provide correct information in relation to her second Subclass 417 visa application might tend to suggest that the decision to grant her that visa was based wholly or partly on incorrect information and this might tend to weigh in favour of cancelling her visa. The applicant was invited to comment and replied that she understands this, however if there were COVID visas available in the past she would have pursued them. The applicant added it was bad timing for her when the visa application was made. 
15.  	The applicant advised that she wishes to travel more throughout Australia with her boyfriend. She had nothing further to add regarding her present circumstances. The applicant indicated she had not breached any Australian laws or other visa requirements. She informed the Tribunal that she made a contribution to the Australian community through her previous IT role and current administration role, although she confirmed it was paid work and not volunteering. The applicant also confirmed she had no children in her care.
16.  	The Tribunal canvassed the mandatory legal consequences of visa cancellation with the applicant and in response she requested that a visa ban of 3 years not be imposed upon her as she wants to live in Australia in the long term. The applicant confirmed that no international obligations were relevant to her case, she had no issues of hardship to raise, and that there is no reason she cannot return to Northern Ireland. The applicant confirmed that she and her boyfriend are taking steps to book in for a COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible. The applicant indicated that her boyfriend, Mr Brennan, also had his Subclass 417 visa cancelled and sought review. She maintained that they will continue to travel together regardless of the outcome upon review. At the conclusion of the hearing, the applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that she had no further evidence to submit. 
Did the notice comply with the requirements in s.107?  
17.  	Section 107 of the Act is only engaged if the Minister or delegate considers that the visa holder has not complied with one of the provisions mentioned in s.107(1). It is only then that the Minister or delegate is entitled to give notice to the visa holder under s.107. Therefore, if a notice is to be given under s.107, the Minister or delegate must have reached a state of mind where they consider that the visa holder has not complied with one or more of the relevant provisions. 
18.  	The Tribunal notes that the NOICC dated 22 December 2020 was sent to the applicant by email. She responded to the NOICC on 11 January 2021 through a previously appointed registered migration agent. The Tribunal has considered the validity of the NOICC. The Tribunal is satisfied that it contains sufficient particulars to enable the applicant to identify and address the issues and also that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage the provisions of s.107 of the Act. 
19.  	Therefore, in the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 of the Act and that the notice issued under s.107 of the Act complied with the statutory requirements. 
Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?
20.  	The Tribunal must consider 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) of the Act. 
21.  	The s.107 notice particularises non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act by the applicant in relation to her second Subclass 417 visa application. It indicates the applicant incorrectly answered questions in that visa application in relation to having performed 3 months specified work in a regional area. 
22.  	It is not in dispute that the applicant’s visa application falsely declares the performance of 3 months specified work in a regional area. Whilst the applicant initially sought to distance herself from full responsibility for the contents of the application, by claiming to not have completed it herself, in due course, particularly when confronted with the provisions of s.98 of the Act, she accepted responsibility. 
23.  	Following careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that the incorrect answers regarding the applicant’s performance of 3 months of specified work in a regional area constitute the provision of incorrect answers in the manner particularised in the s.107 notice. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the answers provided by the applicant as particularised in the s.107 notice are incorrect. 
24.  	Therefore, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. 
Should the visa be cancelled?
25.  	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). 
26.  	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; and
•	any contribution made by the holder to the community.
27.  	The Tribunal has also very carefully considered the attribution of weight to the evidence before it in assessing whether the applicant’s visa should be cancelled. In doing so, the Tribunal is mindful of the observations of Collier J in Botha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 362 at [39]: 
There is ample authority at high level in this country that it is for a decision-maker to attribute such weight to relevant information as it sees fit: see for example Kirby J in Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [24]; Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [197]; the plurality in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS (2010) 243 CLR 164 at [33].
28.  	The Tribunal has duly considered the applicant’s response to the NOICC submitted on 11 January 2021. Of note, the applicant seeks to diminish her culpability by indicating she was unaware of the particulars of the visa application completed by the unnamed third party and that it was ‘through duress’ that her second Subclass 417 visa application was lodged. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the response of the applicant to the NOICC of 11 January 2021 weighs neither in favour nor against cancellation of her visa, given that more contemporary evidence is before the Tribunal. 
29.  	The correct information in relation to the questions in the relevant visa application previously outlined is that the applicant did not perform 3 months specified work in a regional area. The false information submitted in her visa application regarding this topic is, in the view of the Tribunal, a very serious matter. This is particularly so given the applicant knew she was not entitled to be granted the second Subclass 417 visa without performing the relevant work, but chose to turn a blind eye to the information lodged on her behalf at the cost of $1,000 paid to an unnamed party. These circumstances weigh strongly in favour of cancelling the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa given the blatantly false nature of the incorrect information submitted. For completeness, the Tribunal finds that there is no circumstance in the present matter regarding the content of a genuine document and therefore no weight is given to that prescribed circumstance. 
30.  	The Tribunal forms the view that the decision regarding the applicant being granted the second Subclass 417 visa was based wholly or partly on incorrect information. That is, the applicant’s visa application falsely submitted that she performed 3 months specified work in a regional area. Given that this topic is central to the grant of a second Subclass 417 visa, had the true information been known to the Department the applicant would not have been granted the visa. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that the circumstances in relation to the grant of the second Subclass 417 visa to the applicant weigh strongly in favour of cancelling her visa. 
31.  	The Tribunal finds that the applicant engaged in a deliberate course of conduct to pursue a second Subclass 417 visa application in the knowledge that she had not performed 3 months specified work in a regional area. That she chose to pay $1,000 to an unidentified person to lodge the application on her behalf reflects poorly upon her. At no stage did the applicant contact the Department during 2020 to discuss her options in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather, she made the conscious decision to pursue a pathway that would submit incorrect information on her behalf in her second Subclass 417 visa application. It is worth pausing to reflect that the incorrect information only came to light when the Department conducted integrity checks and the applicant never volunteered the true information to the Department. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred weigh strongly in favour of cancelling the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa. 
32.  	The applicant did not specifically submit that her present circumstances weigh against the cancellation of her visa. However, the Tribunal has considered that the applicant is employed full time in an administrative role in Brisbane, she wishes to see more of Australia, she fears acquiring COVID-19 in Northern Ireland if she returns there and she wishes to remain in Australia with her boyfriend in the long term (noting he is also subject to the cancellation of his Subclass 417 visa). However, the Tribunal notes that the applicant is eligible to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination in Queensland which will mitigate the health risks to her if she returns to Northern Ireland, noting that the virus is prevalent in that location (including as indicated by submitted media articles pertaining to that region). Indeed, the applicant advised she and her boyfriend are seeking appointments to obtain this vaccine. Further, the Tribunal considers that given the applicant’s education she will be able to find suitable employment if she returns to her native Northern Ireland. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s present circumstances weigh neither in favour nor against cancellation of her visa given that she aspires to remain in Australia, yet there is no persuasive reason why she cannot return to her native Northern Ireland. 
33.  	The Tribunal has carefully considered the subsequent behaviour of the applicant concerning her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act and also whether there are any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder. There are no adverse matters before the Tribunal with regard to these matters. Therefore, on balance, the Tribunal finds that these matters weigh moderately against the cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa. 
34.  	The time that has elapsed since the non-compliance with s.101(b) has been carefully considered by the Tribunal. The applicant made the application for the second Subclass 417 visa on 4 May 2020, approximately 16 months prior to the time of this decision. Given this period of time is not lengthy, on balance, the Tribunal finds that the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance weighs neither in favour nor against cancellation of her visa. 
35.  	There is no evidence of any breaches of the law since the applicant’s non-compliance and the Tribunal affords this circumstance moderate weight against cancellation of her Subclass 417 visa. The applicant contends that she has made a contribution to the community through her paid employment in the administration and Information Technology fields. Following careful consideration, the Tribunal finds that these matters weigh slightly against the cancellation of her Subclass 417 visa. 
36.  	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 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. 
37.  	The Tribunal has considered 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. As outlined above, the mandatory legal consequences of visa cancellation were canvassed with the applicant at the review hearing. If the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa is cancelled and she does not hold a valid visa she will become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention under s.189 of the Act and removal under s.198 of the Act. She may also be subject to s.48 of the Act which limits further specific visa applications by a person who does not hold a substantive visa and who has had a visa cancelled since they last entered the migration zone. Further, the applicant may be subject to an exclusion period regarding future visa applications. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant would be subject to indefinite detention and be unable to be removed to The United Kingdom. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the mandatory legal consequences of cancellation weigh neither in favour of, nor against, cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa given they are the intended consequences of the legislation. 
38.  	The Tribunal has carefully considered all other relevant matters, including the degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant if her Subclass 417 visa is cancelled. As outlined above, the applicant did not specifically press any issues of hardship at the review hearing. However, the Tribunal accepts that there will be some hardship for her if her visa is cancelled in relation to leaving employment, seeking further visas and the ability to conduct additional travel in Australia. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the applicant would face a limited degree of hardship if her visa is cancelled and this weighs slightly against the cancellation of her Subclass 417 visa. For completeness, the Tribunal notes that the applicant advised she would remain travelling with her boyfriend, Mr Chris Brennan, regardless of the outcome of merits review. This is a matter that weighs neither in favour nor against cancellation of her visa. 
39.  	For reasons previously outlined, the Tribunal finds there is no persuasive evidence before it to suggest that any international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa, such as non-refoulement obligations, family unity principles or the obligation to consider the best interests of the child. Accordingly, this consideration weighs neither in favour of, nor against, cancellation of the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa. The Tribunal records that it has duly considered all relevant matters in the applicant’s case. 
40.  	The Tribunal has carefully reflected upon the circumstances both against, and in favour of, cancelling the applicant’s Subclass 417 visa. For reasons previously expressed, the Tribunal finds that the applicant engaged in a knowingly dishonest course of conduct to utilise an unidentified third party to lodge her second Subclass 417 visa application, relying upon the false premise that she completed 3 months of specified work in a regional area. In doing so there was non-compliance with s.101(b) of the Act by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. 
41.  	On balance, following much consideration, the Tribunal finds that the circumstances in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa outweigh those circumstances to the contrary. 
CONCLUSION
42.  	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 outlined above, the Tribunal concludes that the Subclass 417 visa should be cancelled.
decision
43.  	The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa.

K. Chapman
Member

ATTACHMENT – Migration Act 1958 (extracts)
5	Interpretation
(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.
97	Interpretation
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).
98	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.
99	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.
100	Incorrect 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.
101	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.
107	Notice 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.
108	Decision 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.
109	Cancellation 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.