[2022] NZIACDT 11 — BU v McCarthy (Christopher Mark McCarthy)

Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal · decided 18 May 2022 · adviser: Christopher Mark McCarthy

The Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal's published summary

Adviser failed to lodge s 61 request / failed to keep client informed of developments in a timely manner / misled clients by pretending an application had been made / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1 / HELD / breaches of cl 1 / request should have been ready to lodge in the months between receiving instructions and payment, but adviser concedes he failed to act / adviser unprofessional and lacked diligence / further, few communications to clients did not keep them informed of progress / last communication was misleading in that it pretended an application had been made, and clients continued to believe this until they contacted INZ directly / did not provide an explanation to Tribunal / advisers are obliged to explain conduct in the face of dishonesty allegation / adverse inference of misleading behaviour drawn / 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.