[2021] NZIACDT 25 — RH v Ji (Yan Ji)

Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal · decided 8 November 2021 · adviser: Yan Ji

The Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal's published summary

Dishonest behaviour / adviser deliberately misled INZ and the IAA / conflict of interest / numerous breaches of obligations / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl5, cl7a, cl17a, cl17b, cl17c, cl18b, cl19l, cl22, cl31a / adviser did not engage with Tribunal / blamed an unknown offshore adviser and translation mistake for past false information / actually had a business relationship with that adviser, and was told false information was deliberate / acted without disclosing actual conflict of interest / could not objectively explain false information given business relationship / failed to send client the INZ response letter before and immediately after submitting it / failed to explain significant matters in written agreement & provide complaints procedure & summary of professional responsibilities / unintentionally failed to provide invoice / declined to consider whether advisers have wider obligation, outside of resolving client’s situation, to disclose wrongdoing to relevant authorities / complaint upheld.

Read the full decision (PDF, Ministry of Justice)

This page reproduces the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal's own published summary as a fair report of public proceedings; the linked decision is the authoritative record. A decision is not itself a finding of wrongdoing — some complaints are dismissed. Complainants are anonymised by the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. Complaints about advisers go to the Immigration Advisers Authority.