Immigration adviser’s licence cancelled

The Tribunal ordered Ms Yu to pay $25,500 in penalties for 7 complaints. It also ordered her to pay $9,700 in compensation to 2 clients, made up of $1,540 and $8,160.

This decision follows findings on 7 complaints that the Immigration Advisers Authority (IAA) investigated. The Tribunal found serious and repeated misconduct, including at least 6 findings of dishonesty. The Tribunal also found that Ms Yu:

• worked without the required supervision
• did not provide written agreements or invoices
• hid visa declines
• made or changed immigration documents, and
• refused to give client files to the IAA.

In some cases, migrants were told their visa applications were submitted or in progress, but no application had been lodged. Some clients lost their lawful immigration status, could not work, or had to make urgent section 61 requests.

Ms Yu also lodged applications without client instructions, hid correspondence from Immigration New Zealand, and gave false or misleading information.

One of the most serious matters involved a migrant being sponsored for a job at a company owned by Ms Yu’s husband. The Tribunal found the job did not exist.

It also found unlawful premium payments were taken, and that the migrant was coached on how to hide unlawful work from Immigration New Zealand. The Tribunal said was an immigration scam involving dishonesty, conflicts of interest, and exploitation of vulnerable migrants.

The Tribunal also found a pattern of not engaging with the IAA. Ms Yu often did not reply, failed to provide client files when the law required her to, and regularly did not take part in Tribunal proceedings. This contributed to the Tribunal’s findings about her conduct.

The Tribunal found serious and repeated misconduct. In its sanctions decisions, the Tribunal said Ms Yu’s conduct showed a clear and entrenched pattern of serious misconduct. It said this led to a loss of confidence that she could practise safely or comply with professional obligations in the future.

Registrar of Immigration Advisers Duncan Connor said cancelling a licence is always a last resort, but is sometimes necessary.

“The primary purpose of disciplinary action is protection of the public. In this case, the Tribunal found repeated dishonesty and widespread non-compliance with the Code of Conduct. Given the seriousness of the misconduct and the clear pattern of behaviour, cancellation of the licence and a bar on relicensing were necessary to maintain public confidence in the immigration advice system.”

The Tribunal said Ms Yu’s misconduct was at the most serious level. It noted Ms Yu’s licence had previously been suspended and that her behaviour continued, despite earlier warnings, fines, and chances to put things right. The Tribunal made financial penalty and compensation orders in several cases. It stated that dishonesty like this is not compatible with holding an immigration adviser licence.