Ministry of Justice

Diligence and due care / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl19f, cl20a, cl20b / HELD / adviser failed to exercise diligence and due care by not sufficiently knowing forecasted revenue figure in business plan & incorrectly asserting he had a written confirmation of the wrong figure from INZ or that INZ had not referred to the correct figure previously / not professional or respectful in blaming complainant and INZ for his wrong advice / Tribunal does not accept adviser was dishonest, rather he lacked due care / adviser admitted failure to provide an estimate of time in written agreement when required by cl19f / fees charged not reasonable and time spent getting up to speed resolving the revenue discrepancy cannot be justified / complaint partially upheld    

Failed to provide invoices prior to receiving payment / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl16a, cl22, cl26aii, cl26aiii / HELD / adviser did not provide invoices before or at the time of payment / insufficient to rely on contract and other communications allowing invoice to be constructed, without providing invoice itself / being away on travel does not excuse compliance with cl22 / further grounds of complaint dismissed / no evidence adviser deliberately or misleadingly withheld decline letter / no breach of cl16a as in-person meeting was not the initial consultation / videoconference or texts could amount to initial consultation / no breach of cl26aii or cl26aiii as these clauses do not require the creation of material that does not exist / complaint partially upheld

Diligence and due care / adviser failed to maintain client’s confidence and trust / ceased engaging, did not carry out instructions & did not appropriately withdraw from providing services / filed incomplete EOIs without instructions or written agreement & did not provide updates / did not provide client file to new adviser or IAA / failed to follow internal complaints procedure & provide fair and reasonable refund / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2a, cl2e, cl15b, cl24c, cl26b, cl26e, cl26f, cl27b, cl28c / HELD / psychologist’s report on adviser does not evidence complete inability to act, could have advised client to seek alternative assistance / ill-health not a defence in this case but will mitigate sanctions / required to obtain instructions and express written approval for each immigration application / should have refunded fair and reasonable amount when ceasing services / complaint upheld

Diligence and due care / adviser lacked due care and diligence in submitting a hopelessly flawed EOI and residence application / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1 / HELD / adviser concedes she breached cl1 / complainant could not satisfy English language criterion using uncompleted qualification & employment did not meet requirements as it was for less than 12 months / counsel’s characterisation as a one-off event at lower end of spectrum not accepted / two glaring errors, made twice / adviser is responsible for any mistakes by her staff and should have assessed the application itself / complaint upheld

Sanctions / failed to disclose a conflict of interest in writing and obtain written consent, failed to maintain a client file with copies of all written and oral communications, and failed to make file available to IAA / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s3, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl5, cl6, cl26aiii, cl26e / most serious breach was failure to disclose conflict in writing and obtain client’s written consent; mitigated by verbal disclosure of conflict / five previous complaints upheld / poor disciplinary history is a significant aggravating feature / adviser censured / public require protection / adviser prevented from reapplying for licence for maximum two years / ordered to pay $2,000 financial penalty / costs claimed for compensation not caused by upheld breaches, declined

Conflict of interest & failed to maintain a client file / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl3a, cl5, cl6, cl26aiii, cl26e / HELD / complaint adviser facilitated payment of employment premium not proven, conflicting evidence about purpose of payment / breach of cl5 & cl6 / adviser was also a director of the restaurant employing the complainant but did not disclose the conflict in writing or obtain written consent / breach of cl26aiii & cl26e / client file contained limited communications with complainant and none with their employer, and adviser did not provide the same to the IAA / complaint partially upheld

Sanctions / diligence and due care / adviser was late seeking an NZQA assessment / no service contract for work visa / no written confirmation given of termination of services or oral advice / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s3, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl18a, cl26c, cl28a / HELD / second appearance before Tribunal / adviser censured & directed to undertake further training due to deficient systems and understanding of professional obligations / ordered to pay $1,500 financial penalty / claim for refund of fees ($3,553) upheld, including the $445 NZQA fee which was paid late and without checking whether the client still wished to proceed / compensation claim not upheld as not particularised or evidenced 

Sanctions / diligence and due care / gave incorrect advice to client about whether they could enter New Zealand, delaying return and employment / honest mistake but not advice a reasonable, prudent and diligent practitioner would give / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s3, s50, s51 / first appearance before Tribunal / isolated incident of wrong advice that had severe consequences / low level wrongdoing / adviser cautioned, rather than censured / ordered to pay $1,000 financial penalty / no justification for refund of successful residence application fees / compensation claim partially upheld for lost wages / Tribunal may award reasonable compensation; a contribution towards losses and expenses, not an indemnity / large compensation claims cannot avoid usual civil process / four weeks gross wages ($4,480) awarded for loss of income

Diligence and due care / adviser failed to reply to PPI letter or inform complainant their application was declined / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s7, s442, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl26a / HELD / adviser did not engage with Tribunal / breaches of cl1 / lack of professionalism, diligence and due care in failing to substantively respond to PPI letter, compounded by not obtaining urgent instructions after being reminded by INZ / failure to inform complainant of application outcome, or reply to complainant’s emails regarding work visa and residence application, also constitute breaches of cl26a / dishonesty or misleading conduct allegation not upheld, as adviser did not know of decline decision before being told by complainant / complaint upheld

Appeal against Registrar rejecting complaint / complaint adviser used misleading and invalid agreements, did not provide or explain Code of Conduct and internal complaints procedure, asked to charge a higher fee, required payment in cash & in breach of contract / Registrar rejected complaint on basis it disclosed only a trivial or inconsequential matter / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s7, s442, s451, s54 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl17, cl18b, cl19m, cl19n / Ekanayake v Registrar of Immigration Advisers [2015] NZIACDT 67 / Immigration New Zealand (Calder) v Cleland [2019] NZIACDT 25 / HELD / file evidences breaches of cl1, cl17, cl18b, cl19m & cl19n / as objective of tax residency work was to secure visa, tax work captured by “immigration advice” definition / failure to recognise this meant adviser entered into agreement without following Code obligations / other complaints not established / Registrar exercised discretion reasonably and lawfully / appeal rejected

Diligence and due care / adviser gave incorrect advice to client about whether they could enter New Zealand / originally gave correct advice, but in later correspondence, failed to correctly identify the relevant start date of client’s visa / assumed date of INZ letter was the same as visa start date / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1 / Immigration Act 2009, s62 / HELD / adviser admitted mistake / breach of cl 1 / faced with simple question and relevant instruction is uncomplicated / expected to correctly know facts and INZ criteria when giving advice on critical matter such as returning to NZ to undertake employment / adviser should have double-checked and followed up later if facing difficulties communicating / although common, not invariable that date of visa letter will align with start date / momentary lapse in concentration, but not an excusable human error / complaint upheld 

Sanctions / adviser failed to communicate adequately / did not confirm in writing when she lodged application / did not confirm termination of services in writing / Immigration Advisers Act 2007, s3, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl26b, cl28a / first appearance before Tribunal / important to communicate professionally, but conduct not serious / adviser cautioned / circumstances do not justify a small financial penalty / conduct did not cause complainant loss, no grounds for refund

Negligence / numerous breaches of Code / failed to identify qualification did not meet instructions & client’s ineligibility / failed to get approval to change visa category / failed to have written agreement / failed to respond to INZ letter / failed to inform clients they were unlawful & provide updates / failed to advise outcome / did not ensure payment for reconsideration application / failed to file requests in a timely manner & when requested / failed to confirm details of material discussions in writing / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl18a, cl26aiii, cl26b, cl 26c / adviser conceded Code breaches & provided explanation / errors attributed to health and personal difficulties / acting pro bono does not lower standard required / no breach of cl26aiii, it does not require creation of written communications; cl26(c) does / complaint upheld