Search Results

1. Jia v Wang [2011] NZIACDT 30 (19 September 2011) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...practices, account for fees properly, and dishonest and misleading behaviour. [22] She frankly accepted what occurred caused her considerable concern. In particular: [22.1] The fee of $20,000 was excessive. The normal fee was less than $5,000 for an offshore person seeking a work visa. This raised the suspicion that there was overcharging of a naïve person; alternatively some of the funds were to be used (unlawfully) to induce an employer to provide a position of employment that was not...

2. E68 Colin Williams - Navigation Safety - EIC - Sanford Ltd [pdf, 821 KB]

   ...of Fisheries, now known as Ministry of Primary Industries. I joined the commercial sector in 1996. During my tenure in the commercial sector I have had several employed and contracted roles for small to medium size operations in New Zealand and offshore, as well as significant engagements with two of the largest operators in the commercial sector namely Sealord Group Limited and Sanford Limited. 4. I am authorised to give this evidence on behalf of both Sanford and AFPL. While,...

3. Sidhu v Tan [2016] NZIACDT 62 (29 September 2016) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...application in circumstances where Ms Sidhu had remitted funds to New Zealand without complying with the rules for Long Term Business Category visas. There is a specific requirement that an applicant remits their investment funds direct from their offshore bank account. When Mr Tan found out about the error, instead of providing appropriate advice, he proceeded to lodge a non-complying visa application, which failed. [2] Mr Tan essentially accepted the facts supporting the complaint...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 28 Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...in the business. It is clear that she was a highly regarded and valued employee of HL Ltd and the Imports Team, which she managed. [4] During 2012 consideration was being given to the possibility that increased efficiencies might be made by off-shoring some imports functions to the Hapag- Lloyd Global Service Centre in Chennai. The proposal emanated from Hapag- Lloyd’s headquarters in Hamburg. Mr Carter, the Managing Director of HL Ltd, was not involved in these early discussio...

5. Singh v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 22 (7 July 2011) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...director of the Fiji practice in May 2009, the former staff member accused of theft took over and did things the Adviser would not condone, and should not be responsible for. General comments: [10.14] When the Complainant first lodged her application, offshore advisers could operate without being licensed. [10.15] The Adviser’s New Zealand licence “should not be impeached” on the basis of what was occurring in Fiji. [10.16] The Adviser was not licensed at the time. [10.17] T...

6. [2023] NZIACDT 14 - II v Sun (26 April 2023) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...Client Care 2. A licensed immigration adviser must: … e. obtain and carry out the informed lawful instructions of the client, and … Legislative requirements 3. A licensed immigration adviser must: … c. whether in New Zealand or offshore, act in accordance with New Zealand immigration legislation, including the Immigration Act 2009, the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 and any applicable regulations. Written agreements 19. A licensed immigration adviser must...

7. [2019] NZCAA 1 (18 January 2019) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...the online report regarding the odometer from the New Zealand website. It claimed that Customs’ position was implausible. [11.2] New Zealand officials could not provide the information required regarding the process to check odometers for offshore vehicles. [11.3] The appellant could not obtain the information regarding the vehicle from the New Zealand database that Customs used. [11.4] The appellant reiterated the financial effect of the forfeiture, and said that in additio...

8. HES v Parekh [2019] NZIACDT 36 (29 May 2019 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...most challenging and quite tricky applications. [24] It was noted by Ms Parekh that there was a misunderstanding as to the statement that the couple had lived together for 18 months. A partner living in New Zealand could support a partner offshore whom he or she had never met. This was called a “long distance relationship”. The problem was that, unless Immigration New Zealand changed its policy, there was nothing much they could do. As for 24 months, that was calculated...

9. KIT v Zhu [2019] NZIACDT 34 (20 May 2019) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...Authority a willingness to compensate her. However, he was confused about her request for $27,500. If she was an overstayer, she should have left New Zealand. It was not the right decision to stay. She could have applied for a new student visa offshore and would not then have incurred living expenses in New Zealand. Notwithstanding this, he will follow the Tribunal’s order regarding financial support. [40] Testimonials as to Mr Zhu’s abilities, professionalism and ethical...

10. INZ (Gilray) v Croxson [2019] NZIACDT 79 (9 December 2019) Sanctions [pdf, 117 KB]

    IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2019] NZIACDT 79 Reference No: IACDT 003/18 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY THE REGISTRAR OF IMMIGRATION ADVISERS Registrar BETWEEN IMMIGRATION NEW ZEALAND (JOCK GILRAY) Complainant AND PETER JOHN CROXSON Adviser DECISI