Ministry of Justice

Breach of professional obligations and Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act) / partnership and cultural marriage visitor visa applications / failure to provide written agreement to client / failure to provide appropriate advice / failure to keep notes of meetings / negligence / s442a and s442e of the Act  / breach of Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl18a, cl19a and cl26c / Sparks v Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 / Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 / immigration adviser not named / adviser failed to take due care in assessing complainant’s circumstances / failed to keep records of advice given / adviser negligent  / complaint upheld.

Breach of professional obligations and Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act) / student and visitor visa applications / failure to provide written agreement to client / adviser did not engage with client / adviser did not keep complete file notes / s442e of the Act  / breach of Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl18a, cl26aiii and cl26c / Sparks v Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 / Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 / unlicensed staff processed application / adviser did not personally obtain client’s instructions / no written agreement / adviser failed to keep file notes / complaint upheld.

Sanctions decision / complaint upheld by Tribunal / Hahn v Walke [2019] NZIADCT 19 / seminars / allowing unlicensed  person to give immigration advice / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1 and cl3c / HELD / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s50 and s51 / power to award sanctions / Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 / Dentice v Valuers Registration Board [1992] 1 NZLR 720 (HC) / Liston v Director of Proceedings [2018] NZHC 2981 / professional disciplinary proceedings focused on protection of the public and profession, not punishment / Patel v Complaints Assessment Committee HC Auckland CIV-2007-404-1818, 13 August 2007 / advisor’s actions serious / s511a / advisor censured / s511e / prohibited from reapplying for licence  for two years / required to complete training before reapplying for licence / s511f / fined

Rubber stamping / breach of professional obligations and Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act) / failure to tailor written agreement to client / delays in preparing EOI / lack of refund policy / failure to refund / s442a of the Act  / negligence / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl3c, cl19e, cl19k and cl24 / Sparks v Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 / Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 / adviser did not have any involvement with file / unlicensed staff processed application / obligations cannot be delegated / agreement not tailored to client’s circumstances  / delay in preparing EOI unreasonable and negligent / advisor failed to offer a fair and reasonable refund / complaint upheld

Immigration adviser in breach of professional obligations and Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act) / four heads of complaint alleged / misleading or dishonest conduct / s442d of the Act / failure to pay refund promised / failure to maintain all communications in required manner / failure to provide written communications for inspection / Code of Conduct 2014, cl24b & cl24c, cl26aiii and cl26e / Sparks v Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 / Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 / insufficient evidence of dishonest or misleading conduct / adviser failed to promptly provide promised refund / adviser breached written agreement with complainant / sufficient record of communications with clients existed / complaint upheld.

Sanctions decision / complaint upheld by Tribunal / GZ v Lu [2019] NZIADCT 15 / rubber stamping / adviser allowed unlicensed people to provide immigration advice / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1 and cl3c / HELD / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s50 and s51 / power to award sanctions / Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 / Dentice v Valuers Registration Board [1992] 1 NZLR 720 (HC) / Liston v Director of Proceedings [2018] NZHC 2981 / professional disciplinary proceedings focused on protection of the public and profession, not punishment / Patel v Complaints Assessment Committee HC Auckland CIV-2007-404-1818, 13 August 2007 / issues of punishment and deterrence also considered / adviser’s actions were isolated and at lower end of disciplinary spectrum / acts not intentional / adviser was proactive in resolving complaint and correcting business practices / adviser cautioned / additional (online) training ordered.

Failure to properly manage refund of fee / unprofessional negotiations / no signed agreement of confirmed acceptance / complainant cancelled services & requested refund / adviser insisted on full & final settlement condition before paying refund / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl18c, cl 24c / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / previous complaints upheld by Tribunal / Tribunal’s statutory authority cannot be ousted by agreement between the parties / registrar’s views on protection of public carries considerable weight in Tribunal / adviser acknowledged breaches in joint statement with registrar which Tribunal accepted / conduct stemmed from lack of understanding of professional obligations / adviser undertaking training & improved systems & processes / complaint upheld / adviser prevented from applying for any form of licence other than provisional licence for 12 months following completion of training / adviser censured & ordered to pay balance of fee to complainant.

Sanctions decision / negligence / adviser failed to assess eligibility of graduate work visa application / adviser now bankrupt / licence surrendered / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s50, s51 / no basis for application & competent adviser would not have advised client to pursue it / adviser not responsible for application’s failure / adviser censured & ordered to pay $5,835 in refund of fees & expenses at $30 weekly.

Failure to engage with client / failure to deal with conflict of interest appropriately / long term business visa / complainant (client) purchaser of a business / adviser did not deal directly with complainant / adviser relied on vendor of business to be an intermediary / information provided in business proposal inaccurate / adviser sent emotional text to complainant after complaint made / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2, cl3, cl6 / clear conflict of interest but no breach of cl6 / vendor an agent but not a client / adviser accepted instructions from conflicted intermediary but lack of due care & professionalism not part of complaint so no breach / lack of engagement with client cannot be excused by client consent / obligation to engage with client cannot be waived / adviser’s key failure accepting an intermediary & not personally engaging with complainant / text unprofessional but did not cross disciplinary threshold / complaint upheld.

Rubber stamping / allowing unlicensed people to manage visa application process / adviser based in Pakistan & director of immigration consultancy / staff from consultancy communicated with clients & INZ / adviser assessed eligibility of clients & involved at various times during application process / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl3c / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / most of engagement undertaken by staff / adviser’s mode of business allowed staff to perform substantive immigration services / staff communications with clients not minor & crossed disciplinary threshold / adviser not professional or diligent / adviser delegated bulk of engagement process to staff / not enough to be engaged in some key stages / complaint upheld.

Sanctions decision / rubber stamping / allowing unlicensed people to manage visa application process / adviser entered arrangements with companies that sourced jobs for Sri Lankan & Filipino workers / failure to personally engage with each client / adviser had little or no contact with clients / lack of clarity as to respective responsibilities of company & adviser / adviser facilitated provision of immigration advice by unlicensed staff / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s50, s51 / adviser negligent but breach not deliberate / adviser careless as to contractual arrangements & misunderstood limits of clerical work exclusion / adviser overlooked template agreement not suited to her or clients’ needs / adviser censured, ordered to undertake refresher course & pay penalty of $4,000.

Sanctions decision / rubber stamping / adviser had no direct contact with client / all communications made via Chinese migration company / staff’s work did not amount to clerical work / bulk of complainant’s instructions carried out by company / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s50, s51 / adviser’s misconduct serious / adviser facilitated unlicensed people to provide services only a licensed adviser could lawfully perform / no wilful violation of Act or Code / adviser did not personally engage with clients because it was against Chinese law / adviser mistakenly believed staff performing permitted clerical work / adviser retired & licence expired / adviser censured & prevented from reapplying for licence for 2 years.

Rubber stamping / allowing unlicensed people to manage visa application process / long-term business visa / complainant client of Chinese migration company / adviser had no direct contact with client in accordance with Chinese law / entire relationship managed by company / business plan submitted to INZ not what complainant approved / whether company’s unlicensed staff performed immigration services / whether Chinese law qualifies adviser’s professional obligations / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl3c / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / staff’s work not clerical work / unlikely staff did not provide immigration advice / staff undertook bulk of assistance & adviser allowed this / adviser misunderstood scope of clerical work but not what they were doing / in terms of obligations adviser’s client was complainant not company / Chinese law restrictions irrelevant to adviser’s obligations / complete abdication to personally engage with client / complaint upheld.