logo
skip to main content skip to search skip to main navigation skip to secondary navigation
View Immigration advisers authority home page
Find an adviser

Adviser login

Login to your RealMe account RealMe logo Login to your RealMe account RealMe logo

Mobile navigation

About us small banner

Risks of combining recruitment and immigration advice

Licensed immigration advisers are increasingly working with recruiters or offering recruitment help. Tribunal decisions show this can raise risk, especially around conflicts of interest, client engagement, and recordkeeping.

Recruitment and immigration are one service to the client

Tribunal decisions show a clear pattern. Even if an adviser thinks recruitment is a separate business, the Tribunal decides based on how the client views the services.

In SM v Kim [2023] NZIACDT 5, the Tribunal looked at where the line sits between immigration advice and related work done to meet visa requirements (including job-finding help). It confirmed that it is possible that an immigration adviser could operate a separate and independent recruitment business which was not caught by the Code of Conduct. However, that did not happen in this case. Although separate fees were charged, there was no separate company, staff, or written agreement. Applying that approach, the Tribunal found that, “From the complainant’s point of view, there is a bundling of the recruiting and immigration services.” The same business delivered both services at the same time.

Because the adviser had not clearly separated the services, the Tribunal held at [73] that the adviser’s professional obligations also applied to the recruitment work. He had to include a full description of all services in the written agreement (cl 19(e) of the Code) and disclose the recruitment fee (cl 19(f) of the Code). Even though he believed recruitment sat outside the Code, failing to do this was still a breach.

Conflicts of interest are the main risk

One of the biggest hazards when services are combined is conflicts of interest, both financial and nonfinancial.

The Huang decisions illustrate this clearly. In AM v Huang [2026] NZIACDT 14 and Immigration New Zealand (Watson) v Huang [2026] NZIACDT 13, conflicts of interest arose because the adviser was linked to employers and recruitment companies through 3‑party arrangements. Importantly, the Tribunal found these conflicts could exist even where there was no commission or “kickback”.

In both decisions, the Tribunal found that the 3-party agreements created potential conflicts that had to be disclosed to clients, with written consent obtained, and the conflicts recorded in the service agreement. Not doing so breached clauses 5, 6, and 19(l) of the Code.

In GX v Huang [2026] NZIACDT 17, the Tribunal repeated the same point. Telling a client something verbally is not enough, even if the adviser thought the client understood or was not disadvantaged. Written disclosure, written consent, and proper recording are mandatory.

Knowing who the adviser acts for

When recruitment and immigration work are delivered together, it can blur a basic question: who is the adviser actually acting for?

Where employers pay fees, recruiters introduce clients, or advisers help employers with accreditation while advising migrants, the Tribunal looks closely at whether:

  • the client clearly understood who the adviser was acting for
  • the adviser’s loyalty was undivided, and
  • the adviser’s role was explained in practical, easy-to-understand terms.

Helpful guidance appears in KM v Jiang [2025] NZIACDT 33. The Tribunal confirmed that the duty in cl 2(e) of the Code is personal to the licensed adviser. It cannot be passed on to someone else.

Under cl 2(e), the adviser must:

  • personally get the client’s informed and lawful instructions, and
  • carry these out.

The adviser cannot communicate only through agents or recruiters.

Records matter

Tribunal decisions have highlighted problems such as:

  • incomplete written agreements
  • failures to record conflicts of interest
  • missing written consent to share information with recruiters, and
  • inadequate file notes or written confirmation of material discussions.

The Code requires advisers to confirm the details of all material discussions in writing, and to keep full client files. When people communicate through recruiters, messaging platforms, or employers, misunderstandings can happen. This is why clear written records are very important.

In KM v Jiang, the Tribunal found a breach of cl 26(b). This was because the adviser did not confirm in writing when the application was lodged or approved, and never communicated directly with the complainant.

Key lessons from Tribunal decisions on recruitment and immigration

These decisions give a clear and consistent message:

  • Combining recruitment services with immigration advice increases risk.
  • Client engagement and documentation must be handled with real care.

Advisers should regularly ask:

  • Would the client reasonably see this as one bundled service?
  • Have all actual or perceived conflicts been disclosed in writing, agreed to in writing, and recorded?
  • Do the written agreements accurately describe every service being provided, and every fee?
  • Are all material discussions clearly confirmed in writing?

When recruitment overlaps with immigration advice, advisers need clear systems and transparent communication. They also need strong records to meet their duties and protect trust in the profession.

Read the decisions

The Tribunal decisions referred to in this article are set out below for further reading:

Top