Recent Immigration Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal decisions
The Immigration Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal has recently released 2 decisions that we would like to highlight.
The decisions involve ‘rubber stamping’, a practice where advisors permit unlicensed individuals to perform immigration work. Clauses 8(a) and 14 were breached in these cases.
Working within your skillset
We received a complaint from Immigration New Zealand in relation to an allegation that the Adviser had been ‘rubber stamping’.
The Adviser was found to have engaged in ‘rubber stamping’ and had breached several of her obligations under the Code. The Tribunal also looked at whether the Adviser worked within the limits of their skillset.
It was also found that the Adviser worked outside the scope of her skills supporting clients with a language barrier. The Adviser stated that she went through agents because she did not speak the same language as the client. The Tribunal found that the Adviser “should have either engaged interpreters or translators at the client’s cost or declined instructions and referred him to a Vietnamese speaking licensed adviser. She acted outside the scope of her skills in accepting these instructions. There was a breach of cl 8(a).”
This case is a good reminder that Advisers must work within their skillset, and that Advisers should be aware of the limitations of their own skills and abilities when working with different clients and on different immigration matters.
Immigration New Zealand v Li decision [PDF 250KB](external link)
Providing evidence of being licensed
The Authority received a complaint from Immigration New Zealand in relation to an allegation that the Adviser had been ‘rubber stamping’.
The Adviser was found to have engaged in ‘rubber stamping’ and had breached several of his obligations under the Code. The Tribunal also looked at whether the Adviser had provided evidence to the client that he was licensed.
The Tribunal found that: “Clause 14 of the Code requires an adviser to provide evidence of being licensed. This is done by providing a copy of the practitioner’s licence.” In this case, the Adviser recorded his status as a Licensed Immigration Adviser in an email to the client at the end of the client relationship.
The Tribunal noted that this did not meet the requirement of clause 14 because it was “an assertion of being licensed and is not evidenced of being licensed” and was “too late.”
In the above case, INZ v Li, the Tribunal also noted “An adviser is required to provide to customer evidence of being licensed. This is usually done by providing a copy of the licence, or even a screenshot of registration from the Authority’s website would suffice.”
This case is a good reminder of the requirement for Advisers to provide evidence of being licensed to clients rather than relying on any reference to being licensed.