Sharon Gail Yerman (Sharon)

Sharon Gail Yerman held New Zealand immigration adviser licence 200902820, first issued in 2009. The licence is now refused.

Licence number

200902820

Licence status

Refused

Licence type

Provisional

First licensed

2009

Role

Director

Source: IAA public register, refreshed September 2026. Verify on the official register.

Register context

Where this licence sits in the register as at September 2026 — all figures derived from the IAA public register, none editorial.

• The register records 10 filings for this licence between 3 March 2010 and 3 March 2019.

Licence history

Every filing recorded on the register for licence 200902820, newest first.

1. Provisional licence - Renewal · 3 March 2019
2. Provisional licence - Initial application · 3 March 2018
3. Full licence - Renewal · 3 March 2017
4. Full licence - Renewal · 3 March 2016
5. Full licence - Renewal · 3 March 2015
6. Full licence - Renewal · 3 March 2014
7. Full licence - Renewal · 3 March 2013
8. Full licence - Renewal · 3 March 2012
9. Full licence - Renewal · 3 March 2011
10. Full licence - Initial application · 3 March 2010

Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal decisions

Published decisions of the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal concerning Sharon Gail Yerman. A decision is not itself a finding of wrongdoing — read each outcome; some complaints are dismissed.

• [2016] NZIACDT 44 — Bisschoff v Yerman30 August 2016
• [2015] NZIACDT 102 — Muller v Yerman11 December 2015
• [2015] NZIACDT 101 — Bisschoff v Yerman11 December 2015
• [2015] NZIACDT 88 — Muller v Yerman31 August 2015
• [2015] NZIACDT 77 — Muller v Yerman25 June 2015
• [2012] NZIACDT 39 — Tully v Yerman31 July 2012
• [2012] NZIACDT 22 — Tully v Yerman17 May 2012
• [2012] NZIACDT 19 — Tully v Yerman9 May 2012

Immigration and Protection Tribunal appeal record

12 published decisions of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (and its predecessor boards) record Sharon Gail Yerman as representative for the appellant. Success rates say as much about which cases a professional takes on as about their work — compare them with the all-appellant rate for the same appeal type, and read the decisions themselves.

• [2016] NZIPT 203124aResidence: skilled migrant · 11 May 2016Dismissed/declined
• [2016] NZIPT 202917aResidence: skilled migrant · 19 January 2016Dismissed/declined
• [2016] NZIPT 202898aResidence: skilled migrant · 13 January 2016Dismissed/declined
• [2016] NZIPT 203000aResidence: skilled migrant · 13 January 2016Dismissed/declined
• [2014] NZIPT 201486eResidence: skilled migrant · 23 May 2014Allowed
• [2012] NZIPT 200725aResidence: skilled migrant · 20 September 2012Dismissed/declined
• [2012] NZIPT 200598aResidence: skilled migrant · 17 July 2012Dismissed/declined
• [2012] NZIPT 200429aResidence: skilled migrant · 20 February 2012Dismissed/declined
• [2011] NZIPT 200307fResidence: skilled migrant · 24 November 2011Referred to Minister — residence granted
• [2011] NZIPT 200202aResidence: skilled migrant · 27 June 2011Dismissed/declined
• [2010] NZIPT 16409eResidence: skilled migrant · 14 April 2010Allowed
• [2010] NZIPT 16327fResidence: skilled migrant · 25 February 2010Referred to Minister — residence granted

This record may be incomplete. Tribunal decisions usually name the representativeby initial and surname only — “J Bloggs” rather than a full name. Where that could point to more than one person on the register, we leave the decision out rather than risk crediting it to the wrong practitioner, so a practitioner may have appeared in more decisions than are shown here. If appearances of yours are missing, tell us on the corrections page and we will verify them against the published decisions and update the profile.

Compiled from decisions published on the Ministry of Justice tribunal decisions database. A decision is attributed only when the representative named in it matches exactly one person on the relevant register (or the firm named in the decision confirms the match); self-represented appellants and uncertain matches are excluded, so this may undercount. Percentages are shown only where at least 5appeals in that category were decided — below that the counts are given on their own, because a single case would swing the figure. “Other” includes referrals to the Minister, withdrawn appeals and jurisdiction decisions. Context for the all-appellant rates: appeal success rates in New Zealand.