Tribunal Decisions – June 2025
The Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal has recently released 2 sanction decisions involving licensed advisers.
Decisions related to immigration advisor Ms Wen
KA v Wen [2025] NZIACDT 26
The Tribunal found that Ms Wen breached multiple clauses of the Code of Conduct, including clauses 1, 2(e), 14, 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 18(a), 18(b), 26(a)(iii), 26(b), and 26(d).
Key findings:
- Did not engage directly with the client to obtain instructions (clauses 1 and 2(e)).
- Did not provide a written agreement (clause 18(a)).
- Did not explain the agreement to the client (clause 18(b)).
- Did not provide evidence of being licensed (clause 14).
- Did not explain professional standards, complaints policy, and the Code (clauses 17(a), (b), and (c)).
- Did not provide the visa application to the client for review before submission (clause 1).
- Did not provide copies of communications with the agent to the Authority (clause 26(a)(iii)).
- Did not maintain a well-managed filing system (clause 26(d)).
- Did not confirm lodgement of the visa application or provide timely updates (clause 26(b)).
Sanction: Ms Wen was censured and ordered to pay $4,000 to the Registrar within 1 month.
Decisions related to immigration advisor Ms Ma
INZ v Ma [2025] NZIACDT 24
The Tribunal found that Ms Ma breached clauses 1, 2(e), 5, 7, 14, 18(a), 26(a)(iii), 26(b), 26(d), and 31(a).
Key findings:
- Misrepresented the client’s circumstances to Immigration NZ by submitting documents the client had not signed (clauses 1 and 31(a)).
- Filed misleading documents (clauses 1 and 31(a)).
- Did not provide a written agreement (clause 18(a)).
- Did not disclose a conflict of interest or withdraw from representation (clauses 5 and 7).
- Did not personally obtain the client’s instructions (clauses 1 and 2(e)).
- Did not provide copies of communications with the client via the agent (clause 26(a)(iii)).
- Did not maintain a well-managed filing system (clause 26(d)).
- Did not confirm lodgement or provide timely updates (clause 26(b)).
- Did not provide evidence of being licensed (clause 14).
Sanction: Ms Ma was censured, ordered to complete the LAWS7015 paper at Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology, and pay $7,000 to the Registrar within 1 month.
Her licence was also suspended under section 51(1)(c) until she successfully completes the LAWS7015 paper.
Decisions related to immigration advisor
ZA v KY [2025] NZIACDT 29
This decision, which was not upheld, helps clarify the rules for advisers who offer non-immigration services alongside immigration advice.
In this case, the adviser helped the complainant with a student placement service but didn’t do any immigration work before the arrangement ended. The Tribunal said:
“Even though the adviser’s agreement mentioned a possible student visa application, none was made. If the adviser had given immigration advice or submitted an application, then all services—including the placement—would have been covered by the Code. But because no immigration work was done, the Code didn’t apply.”
The Tribunal also said:
“A licensed adviser who only provides services that aren’t regulated by the Code is treated the same as someone who isn’t licensed.”
Read recent Tribunal decisions(external link) — Justice.govt.nz