Analysis of Migration Law and Validity of Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation

Running Head: MIGRATION LAW
Migration Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1MIGRATION LAW
Question 1
There are several provisions which are provided by the Migration Act 1958 (cth)
towards governing the authenticity of information which is provided by a person for
making a visa application. These provisions are provided through section 101-105 of the
Act. Further it has been provided by section 107 of the CA that the minister has the right
to issue a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) to any person who is
believed to have found to violate the provisions of section 101-105 of the Act1. It has
been specifically provided by the provisions of section 101(b) of the Act that a visa
applicant while providing information in the visa form must ensure that the information
which is provided is genuine and correct2. It has been provided by the scenario that the
Non-citizen who currently holds a Subclass 866 protection visa has visited Iran twice for
a period of two months after the grant of the protection visa. With respect to the
information provided by the non-citizen for the protection visa it was stated that if he
returns to Iraq again his life would be at risk as he had been threatened on various
occasions by terrorists and had not been provided with adequate support for the local
police. However the holder has returned safely from his visit on both occasions. This
situation makes it clear to the minister that the incorrect information had been provided
by the Non citizen which is a breach of section 101(B) and thus for this a NOICC can be
issued under section 107 of the Act.
Question 2
1 Migration Act 1958 (cth) s 107.
2 Migration Act 1958 (cth) s 101.

2MIGRATION LAW
A NOICC which has been provided under the rules of section 107 of the Act has to be
made in a valid manner. One of the recent cases which deal with the matter in relation
validity of NOICC is the case of Zhong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship3. The
issue before the court in this case was to determine the situation and way in which a
NOICC has to be made by the department. It had been stated by judges in this case
that the NOICC sent pursuant to section 107 must assert the specific section which has
been violated by the holder of a visa. It had also been ruled by the case that the notice
has to be specific and particularized. The notice must also be sent only when it has
been concluded by the delegate that a provision of the Act has not been complied with
by the visa holder. In this case the NOICC which had been issued by the minister only
contained the allegation that the holder has violated the provisions of section 101 of the
Act. However the court held that in order for the notice to be valid under the provisions
of section 107 of the Act it had to particularly state that the provisions of section 101(b)
have been violated any the visa holder.
It has been provided through the scenario that the NOICC which has been provided to
the non-citizen has specifically stated that the defendant has particularly violated the
rules under section 101(b) of the Act. The reason for the violation has also been
provided by the NOICC that the non citizen had stated in interview for the protection
visa that if he returns to Iraq again his life would be at risk as he had been threatened
on various occasions by terrorists and had not been provided with adequate support for
the local police. The Non-citizen who currently holds a Subclass 866 protection visa has
visited Iran twice for a period of two months after the grant of the protection visa.
3Zhong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 507