[2023] NZIACDT 25 — ED v Dai - Sanctions

Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal · decided 25 September 2023

The Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal's published summary

Sanctions / adviser failed to personally advise and obtain instructions from complainant, permitted unlicensed staff to exclusively engage with complainant and give immigration advice / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act, s3, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct, cl2e, cl3c, cl26c / HELD / first appearance before Tribunal / gravity of offending is moderate / duty to fully engage with clients is fundamental, but conduct not amongst worst type of rubber stamping as adviser did much of the substantive work / admission of wrong not fulsome as adviser perpetuated untruthful narrative of engaging with complainant / immigration pathway complainant was advised to follow was futile / no compensation for stress as complainant’s uncertain immigration status not caused by adviser’s failures / tour and tuition fees too remote to be awarded / adviser censured / directed to undertake training / ordered to pay $2,500 financial penalty / compensation of $7,716 awarded for wasted direct application expenses

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.