Professional responsibilities

General

Clause 1:

A licensed immigration adviser must be honest, professional, diligent and respectful and conduct themselves with due care and in a timely manner

Clause 1 relates to an adviser’s behaviour when dealing with clients and any other person or office they may encounter in their professional dealings.

This could include, but is not limited to, Immigration New Zealand, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, the Minister of Immigration, the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, the Authority, the courts, any other government bodies or any other licensed or exempt immigration adviser.

Honesty

Being honest underpins the Code and is an important part of each clause. Honesty is a fundamental ethical value upon which society and the legal system operate. It is important to be honest, even if a client wants the adviser to be dishonest.

Dishonesty is taken very seriously by the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal and can lead to an adviser’s licence being cancelled.

Here are some decisions from the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal that refer to dishonesty:

Professionalism

Note

Professionalism is important because the public needs to know that they can trust all members of the immigration advice profession.

To act professionally the adviser needs to demonstrate that he or she:

brings integrity to all of their business dealings
acts in their client’s best interests
provides the benefits of their knowledge and skill to their client, but also knows the limits of their knowledge and skill
treats people with respect
does not act in a manner that will bring the profession into disrepute.

Here are some decisions from the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal that refer to professionalism:

L v Kim

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 73 (4 June 2015) (PDF, 153KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 108 (22 December 2015) (PDF, 186KB)(external link)

AQ v Mudaliar

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 76 (23 June 2015) (PDF, 192KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 93 (16 October 2015) (PDF, 132KB)(external link)

Juan v Ramos

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 48 (7 May 2015) (PDF, 133KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2016] NZIACDT 3 (14 January 2016)(external link)

Senadipathi & Xavier v Sampang

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 43 (20 April 2015) (PDF, 98KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 110 (23 December 2015) (PDF, 123KB)(external link)

Tully v Yerman

Decision: [2012] NZIACDT 19 (9 May 2012) (PDF, 102 KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2012] NZIACDT 39 (31 July 2012) (PDF, 78 KB)(external link)

Muneez v Deng

Decision: [2013] NZIACDT 33 (27 May 2013) (PDF, 108 KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2013] NZIACDT 53 (20 August 2013) (PDF, 65.4 KB)(external link)

Diligence

To be diligent the adviser needs to demonstrate that he or she:

makes a constant and earnest effort to accomplish what they have agreed to do
takes the appropriate level of care required for the job at hand.

Respect

Respect for persons and their rights is the basis for many of the ethical principles expressed in the Code. To show a person respect an adviser should:

treat them with consideration, and
refrain from offending, corrupting or tempting them.

Having due care

Due care is the conduct that a reasonable person will exercise in a particular situation, in looking out for the safety of others. Advisers who conduct themselves with due care should protect themselves from acting negligently.

To exercise due care the adviser needs to demonstrate that he or she exerts the efforts which are ordinarily applied by a licensed immigration adviser, i.e. the efforts which are expected from a prudent adviser with the same set of skills and experience in a given situation.

Here are some decisions from the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal that refer to diligence and having due care:

Gill v Singh

Decision: [2017] NZIACDT 5 (6 April 2017) (PDF, 82 KB)(external link)

Adams v Aucamp

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 94 (22 October 2015) (PDF, 150KB)(external link)

N v Tangilanu

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 37 (31 March 2015) (PDF, 131KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 62 (19 May 2015) (PDF, 169KB)(external link)

N v Letalu

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 41 (16 April 2015) (PDF, 142KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 109 (22 December 2015) (PDF, 160KB)(external link)

Eppanapally v Zhou

Decision: [2014] NZIACDT 118 (28 November 2014) (PDF, 233KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 84 (27 August 2015) (PDF, 189KB)(external link)

Ikbarieh v Hammadieh

Decision: [2014] NZIACDT 49 (15 April 2014) (PDF, 168KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2014] NZIACDT 111 (13 October 2014) (PDF, 388KB)(external link)

Acting in a timely manner

To act in a timely manner the adviser needs to demonstrate that he or she:

does not spend unnecessary time on any given task, potentially increasing their client’s fees in the process
makes every effort to meet each deadline imposed, no matter who has stipulated it. Not meeting deadlines imposed by Immigration New Zealand or the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, for example, could have a detrimental effect on the client’s immigration matter.

What has changed compared to the 2010 Code?

2010 Code – required due care, diligence, respect and professionalism when dealing with clients and the maintenance of respectful and professional relationships with stakeholders

2014 Code – requires honesty, professionalism, diligence, respectfulness, due care and timeliness at all times and with all people.

Negligence is also a ground for complaint. A person behaves negligently when they are not doing what a reasonable person would do in a situation where that person owes a duty of care. Here are some decisions from the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal that refer to negligence:

Nguyen v Hu

Decision: [2016] NZIACDT 24 (16 May 2016) (PDF, 96 KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2016] NZIACDT 51 (12 September 2016) (PDF, 134 KB)(external link)

Alagappa v Ah-Kuoi

Decision & Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 89 (17 September 2015) (PDF, 18KB)(external link)

Goher v Hammadieh

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 44 (22 April 2015) (PDF, 95KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2016] NZIACDT 1 (14 January 2016)(external link)

Tamang v Varquez

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 39 (15 April 2015) (PDF, 86KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 78 (31 July 2015) (PDF, 186KB)(external link)

Shankar v Ahuja

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 36 (31 March 2015) (PDF, 187KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 106 (21 December 2015) (PDF, 196KB)(external link)

U v Tangilanu

Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 35 (23 March 2015) (PDF, 135KB)(external link)
Penalty Decision: [2015] NZIACDT 61 (19 May 2015) (PDF, 179KB)(external link)

Chand v Devi (Negligence and incompetence)

Decision: [2014] NZIACDT 25 (14 March 2014) (PDF, 138KB](external link)
Penalty Decision: [2014] NZIACDT 80 (15 September 2014) (PDF, 203KB)(external link)

Professional responsibilities

General

Clause 1:

Honesty

Chand v Shearer

J v Khetarpal

EBT v Mudaliar

Toiloloi v Letalu

Chen v Loh

Moctezuma v Chase-Seymour