This site is in beta. We are still smoothing out rough edges. If you spot something wrong or have a suggestion, tell us on the contact page.

[2020] NZIACDT 3, MM v Registrar of Immigration Advisers

A decision of the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, decided 23 January 2020.

The Tribunal's published summary, reproduced as issued.

The decision

The decision at a glance
FactDetail
Decision makerImmigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal
Citation[2020] NZIACDT 3
PartiesMM v Registrar of Immigration Advisers
Decided23 January 2020

The Tribunal's published summary

“Appeal against registrar’s decision to reject complaint about deception / whether sufficient evidence of deceit by adviser to justify returning complaint to Authority / adviser found employment for appellant / adviser allegedly sent appellant photos purporting to be restaurant where he would work but photos depicted different restaurant / restaurant sold and renamed / adviser sought variation of work visa which was approved / appellant complained he was deceived as to the identity of employer and scale of restaurant / registrar found advice given was adequate and rejected complaint / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442, s54 / no prima facie evidence of deceit / no evidence adviser knew photos were of a different restaurant / no evidence adviser knew of change of employer before employment agreement sent to appellant / adviser successful in performing contracted immigration services / appeal rejected.”

Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, [2020] NZIACDT 3 (PDF, Ministry of Justice)

Sources