ED v Registrar of Immigration Advisors [2020] NZIACDT 48 (19 November 2020)

Last Updated: 26 November 2020

IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
Decision No: [2020] NZIACDT 48
Reference No: IACDT 04/20
IN THE MATTER	of an appeal against a decision of the Registrar under s 54 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007
BY	ED
	Appellant
AND	THE REGISTRAR OF IMMIGRATION ADVISERS
	Registrar
SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION ORDER

DECISION

Dated 19 November 2020

REPRESENTATION:

Appellant: Self-represented

Registrar: M Brown, counsel

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Immigration Advisers (the Registrar) of 17 April 2020 declining to pursue a complaint made by ED (the appellant) against ZE, a licensed immigration adviser (the adviser).

[2] The essential issue to consider is whether there is contemporary evidence of any direct communication between the adviser and the appellant, before the latter first raised a complaint and requested a refund of the adviser’s fee.

BACKGROUND

[3] The adviser is a director of AB Ltd, of Auckland (the adviser’s company). This company was previously known as CD Ltd and before that EF Ltd.

[4] On 23 May 2019, the appellant and her husband, nationals of China, applied for visitor visas. The application form states they applied on their own behalf, but the appellant says a Chinese travel agent assisted them. It transpired that false employment and banking documents were provided. The appellant says they were the victims of the agent’s fraud which was unknown to them.

[5] Immigration New Zealand granted visitor visas to the appellant and her husband on 28 May 2019 and they arrived in the country shortly afterwards.

[6] On about 30 June 2019, the appellant met Ms FN (Ms N) by chance. She is on the staff of the adviser’s company, but is not licensed. The appellant told Ms N that she had been cheated by a Chinese agent who gave false information to Immigration New Zealand.

[7] From 1 July 2019, the appellant and Ms N exchanged information by WeChat text and possibly also by voice messages. Ms N sent the appellant a customer information form to be completed and the two of them met at Ms N’s house on 6 July 2019.

[8] The appellant continued to provide further information about herself and her employment to Ms N by text, as well as copies of documents such as the couple’s passports, qualifications and the like.

[9] On 8 July 2019, Ms N sent a text to the appellant informing her she could apply for an English language course, but she would have to sign their service agreement. They could help her apply to a school and also for a student visa.

[10] The appellant and her husband went to Ms N’s house that day to sign the service agreement with the adviser’s company. The agreement recorded that the adviser would assist them with multiple visa applications, starting with an English language student visa for the appellant, a visitor visa for her husband and a student visa for their child. Later, there would be work visa applications. The fee was $9,200.

[11] The adviser’s company issued an invoice on 9 July 2019 to the appellant and her

husband, for $6,900. This is understood to have been paid.

[12] The appellant and Ms N continued to exchange text messages regarding the earlier visitor visas.

[13] On 22 or 25 July 2019, the adviser made a request under the Official Information Act 1982 to Immigration New Zealand seeking a copy of the couple’s immigration file, including original eVisas issued.

[14] The appellant and Ms N continued to exchange texts regarding the choice of school and other matters.

[15] On 30 July 2019, Ms N asked the adviser in a WeChat group about the threshold for the minimum living allowance for a language course of six months, to which the adviser replied that it was $8,500 for a student visa and $7,000 for the visa holder’s partner. Ms N then repeated that information to the appellant in the same WeChat group.1 It is not clear to the Tribunal whether the appellant and her husband, who are presumably in that WeChat group, directly saw the adviser’s reply to Ms N.

[16] Immigration New Zealand provided the requested documents to the adviser on 10 August 2019.

[17] On 20 August 2019, the adviser filed a student visa (English language studies) application on the appellant’s behalf with Immigration New Zealand. A place had been offered by a named language institute. On the following day, the adviser filed a visitor visa application on behalf of the husband (as the partner of a student).

[18] Immigration New Zealand issued interim visas to the appellant and her husband on 11 September 2019, pending the decision on their visa applications.

Immigration New Zealand notifies false information

1 Registrar’s letter to the appellant (17 April 2020) at [5.7].

[19] On 12 September 2019, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the adviser in relation to the student and visitor visa applications of the appellant and her husband respectively. The letters stated that false information (employment letters and bank statements) had been provided in their earlier visitor visa applications made in May 2019. It therefore appeared that they may not meet the good character requirements for a visa. A concern was also raised as to whether they were living together in a genuine and stable relationship.

[20] The adviser’s file notes record that on 16 September 2019, Ms N sent a text to the appellant requesting a discussion. Ms N then went to the appellant’s school and gave her copies of Immigration New Zealand’s letters. Ms N informed her that she needed to decide whether the visa applications should be withdrawn. There was a text exchange between them concerning this.

[21] Ms N went to the appellant’s home the next day, 17 September 2019, and produced a visa application withdrawal letter to be signed. The appellant did not want to sign it. Ms N immediately telephoned Ms EI (Ms I), another unlicensed employee of the adviser’s company. The appellant says this was the second time she spoke to her. Ms I advised the appellant that if the applications were not withdrawn, there was a very high chance of their decline, which would leave a negative record. The appellant was told she would be able to seek a reasonable refund.

[22] The appellant and her husband then signed letters on that day, 17 September 2019, authorising the withdrawal of the student and visitor visa applications. The adviser accordingly withdrew the applications the following day. This was confirmed by Immigration New Zealand by letters to each of them on 19 September 2019. They were both advised that they were liable for deportation from 10 October 2019 and might be prohibited from entering New Zealand.

[23] Ms N then met the appellant at a mall on 19 September 2019 to hand over the letters from Immigration New Zealand. The appellant cried and “smashed” Ms N.2 Later that evening, the appellant sent a text to apologise.

Refund requested

[24] The adviser’s file notes record that on 1 October 2019 he met with the appellant and a friend of hers. An undated note from the friend produced to the Tribunal states the appellant sought a refund. The parties did not reach an agreement.

2 Affirmation Yan Wu (20 August 2020), attachment C at 249.

[25] The adviser sent an email to the appellant’s friend on 1 October 2019 stating that he would refund $3,450.

[26] The friend replied that the appellant believed she was entitled to a full refund but that he might be able to negotiate $5,000, or he would arrange legal action.

[27] The appellant and the adviser exchanged text messages on 3 October 2019 concerning a refund. The communications then became somewhat acrimonious.

[28] The appellant sent an email to the adviser on 8 October 2019 requesting a refund, otherwise a complaint would be lodged with the Authority. According to her, the adviser had not provided any immigration advice, which had been given by Ms N. She sent another email on the same day saying she did not know who the adviser was until meeting him in his office on 1 October 2019.

[29] In an email on 8 October 2019, the adviser said that no-one apart from him had given immigration advice. Nor had the appellant told them about the fraudulent documents previously provided. The adviser offered a refund of half the fee. He would not agree to a full refund, nor refund Immigration New Zealand’s application fee. If the appellant thought there was a problem with his procedure, she could make a complaint to the relevant department.

[30] The appellant wrote another email to the adviser on 9 October 2019 seeking a refund of $7,500, otherwise he would be asked to pay their legal fees of $5,000.

[31] The adviser replied on the same day stating that the appellant had breached her obligation to them and to Immigration New Zealand by providing false information. She was not entitled to a refund. All the documents had been provided “face to face” and nothing had been missed. They would inform Immigration New Zealand and the relevant parties. The appellant was asked not to send further threatening messages.

[32] Ms N lodged a complaint with the Police on 12 October 2019 concerning the appellant’s alleged harassment.

Complaint to Authority

[33] On 10 October 2019, the appellant signed a complaint form and lodged it with the Authority the following day, 11 October. It was against the adviser and the unlicensed Ms N. On 12 October 2019, the appellant signed another complaint form and lodged it with the Authority on an unknown date. It was against the unlicensed Ms I. The Tribunal records that it has no jurisdiction over unlicensed persons, though the conduct of an

unlicensed person can be material to the assessment of a complaint against the licensed

adviser responsible for the unlicensed person’s conduct.

[34] The appellant stated that she had never received any immigration advice from the adviser. She had not spoken to him until seeing him at his office on 1 October 2019. He used the unlicensed Ms N to provide immigration advice.

[35] The appellant recorded that she had met Ms N, her “immigration agent (adviser)”, in July 2019 in a supermarket. She later went to Ms N’s home. She told Ms N that an agent in Shanghai had cheated her out of RMB 270,000 and had provided false information to Immigration New Zealand. They did not know about this until they saw him at the airport on 17 June 2019. It made them very angry.

[36] According to the appellant, Ms N advised her that she could apply for a student visa and there would not be any problem. Ms N passed the phone to her boss, Ms I. The appellant was then given immigration advice by Ms I who said she could apply for a student visa to study English for one year, following which she could study Chinese medicine. Ms I told the appellant she would help her to get a graduation certificate and also to find a job, so she could apply for residence.

[37] Then on 17 September 2019, Ms N again passed the phone to Ms I to talk to her about withdrawing the case and refunding the fee. When she asked for a refund, Ms I said she could only return $3,000, which was not acceptable. The appellant told Ms I that she had no money.

[38] Furthermore, the client agreement did not mention that the adviser’s company

received commission from the English language school.

[39] Additionally, the fee of $9,200 charged was extremely high for a student and visitor visa.

[40] The appellant asked the Authority to carefully investigate what she described as Ms I’s company, since the appellant thought that all the marketing staff had provided immigration advice to clients. The appellant wanted a refund of $7,500 and compensation of $ “8,008 – 10,000” for their financial losses, mental pressure and fear of deportation.

[41] The Registrar wrote to the adviser on 13 November 2019 advising him of the complaint and requiring him to produce his file. On an unknown date, he provided his file to the Authority.

Registrar’s letter dismissing complaint

[42] On 17 April 2020, the Registrar wrote to the appellant advising her that the complaint received on 11 October 2019 would not be pursued as it disclosed only a trivial or inconsequential matter. In his letter, the Registrar reviewed at length the adviser’s file notes. It was acknowledged that there had been extensive interactions between the appellant and Ms N. According to the Registrar, Ms N collected personal information/documents, sent the invoice and service contract, accompanied her to the bank to open an account, made a health check appointment, booked a tourist trip and forwarded Immigration New Zealand’s letters to her.

[43] It was noted by the Registrar that the Tribunal had previously drawn a line between clerical work and immigration advice.3 It appeared that the activities undertaken by Ms N fell under the definition of “clerical work” which was permitted to be undertaken by unlicensed individuals (matters such as collecting personal information and documents, sending invoices, forwarding letters from Immigration New Zealand, helping the appellant to open a bank account and the like). Furthermore, Ms N had sought the adviser’s advice on immigration matters in relation to the application and had copied that advice to the appellant.

[44] The review found that there could be potential breaches of cls 26(c) and 2(e) of the Code of Conduct 2014 (the Code). It appeared that the adviser had failed to confirm in writing the details of material discussions (cl 26(c)). He had also failed to personally obtain the appellant’s instructions for the withdrawal since Ms N and Ms I did this, although he did carry out her instructions (cl 2(e)). These were obligations the adviser could not delegate to unlicensed staff. It also appeared that Ms I had personally given immigration advice to the appellant, as it was recorded on the adviser’s file that Ms I had informed her that if the application was not withdrawn it had a high chance of being declined and that would leave a negative record.

[45] According to the Registrar’s decision, the potential breaches were diminished by a number of matters:

• (1) the appellant had made an informed decision to apply for a student visa and the adviser had carried out her instructions;
  
• (2) it did not appear that the error in failing to confirm in writing the details of material discussions had any impact on the appellant’s visa application or immigration status;
  

3 Immigration New Zealand (Calder) v Ahmed [2019] NZIACD 18 at [65]–[66].

(3) the adviser did not appear to have been aware that Ms I gave immigration advice and it appeared to have been an isolated incident;

(4) the appellant had made an informed decision to withdraw the applications; and

(5) Immigration New Zealand’s concerns were due to false documents which

the adviser had no knowledge of until the government agency had written.

[46] A similar letter was sent by the Authority to the adviser on the same day, adding that the adviser was to bear in mind his obligation to write to clients with details of all material discussions, and also the requirement to personally obtain his clients’ instructions. The Authority regards this as a warning to the adviser.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

[47] The grounds for a complaint against a licensed adviser are listed in s 44(2) of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act):

• (a) negligence;
  
• (b) incompetence;
  
• (c) incapacity;
  
• (d) dishonest or misleading behaviour; and
  
• (e) a breach of the Code.
  

[48] Section 45(1) provides that on receipt of a complaint, the Registrar may:

• (a) determine that the complaint does not meet the criteria set out in section 44(3), and reject it accordingly;
  
• (b) determine that the complaint does not disclose any of the grounds of complaint listed in section 44(2), and reject it accordingly;
  
• (c) determine that the complaint discloses only a trivial or inconsequential matter, and for this reason need not be pursued; or
  
• (d) request the complainant to consider whether or not the matter could be best settled by the complainant using the immigration adviser’s own complaints procedure.

[49] In accordance with s 54 of the Act, a complainant may appeal to the Tribunal against a determination of the Registrar to reject or not pursue a complaint under s 45(1)(b) or (c).

[50] After considering the appeal, the Tribunal may:4

• (a) reject the appeal; or
  
• (b) determine that the decision of the Registrar was incorrect, but nevertheless reject the complaint upon another ground; or
  
• (c) determine that it should hear the complaint, and direct the Registrar to prepare the complaint for filing with the Tribunal; or
  
• (d) determine that the Registrar should make a request under section 45(1)(d).
  

[51] In respect of the complaint here, the Registrar determined that it disclosed only a trivial or inconsequential matter so it did not need to be pursued, in accordance with s 45(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

[52] The adviser against whom the complaint is made is not a party to the appeal and has not been served. The appeal itself cannot result in the Tribunal upholding the complaint against the adviser. Unless the appeal is rejected, this is not a final determination of the complaint. The Tribunal assesses whether the threshold for a deeper examination has been met.

[53] The Tribunal issued directions on 15 July 2020 setting out a timeframe for further submissions and evidence.

Submissions of the appellant

[54] The appellant provided submissions with the appeal on 11 June 2020, together with supporting documents. The complaint made to the Authority is repeated. They assumed Ms N was the adviser and were not aware that Ms N and Ms I were unlicensed. The immigration advice came from them. There was no contact between them and the adviser. They received no advice from him. There was no communication from him, until after the applications were withdrawn.

[55] The adviser is trying to build a false narrative to defend against the complaint. He provided no face-to-face advice, contrary to what he said to them in the email on

4 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 54(3).

9 October 2019. At no time did he contact them during the whole process. The only time they met him was on 1 October 2019.

[56] When Immigration New Zealand sought an explanation, the appellant and her husband wanted to disclose having been conned by their agent in China, but “they” (presumably Ms N and Ms I) persisted with the advice that the applications must be withdrawn without any explanation. Additionally, Ms I provided another option at that time, which was to make a refugee application one year after joining a church.

[57] The appellant seeks compensation of $10,308.56, including a refund of the

adviser’s fee of $6,900.

[58] The appellant produced a document in Chinese sent to the Authority on 9 November 2020, which the Authority copied to the Tribunal. The Tribunal informed the appellant that it would not be accepted unless an English translation was provided. No translation was provided and it has not been considered by the Tribunal.

[59] On 15 November 2020, the appellant sent an email responding to the letter of 10 November 2020 from Ms Wu of the Authority. It was contended that the Authority had not adequately taken into account the actual facts and evidence. The statement by the adviser that he had spoken on the phone to her was completely false. The first time they had any dealings with him was in his office on 1 October 2019.

Submissions of the Registrar

[60] The Registrar’s counsel, Ms Brown, produced submissions on 20 August 2020, together with an affirmation of Ms Vivian Wu (also dated 20 August 2020), one of the Authority’s investigators, with paginated supporting documents.

[61] Ms Brown relies on the affirmation of Ms Wu as to the process and findings of the Registrar. The findings are set out in the Registrar’s letter of 17 April 2020. That letter was sent to the adviser as a warning. It is submitted that the complaint has been properly considered and rejected by a specialist decision-maker.

[62] Ms Wu affirms having assessed “a complaint” against the adviser. The Tribunal notes, however, that two complaints were made by the appellant. This omission by the Registrar will be dealt with later.

[63] Ms Wu records that the WeChat records provided by the adviser were in Chinese. These were not translated as Ms Wu can understand them.

[64] In her affirmation, Ms Wu sets out the specific grounds of complaint investigated, broadly being the allegation that the adviser allowed the unlicensed Ms N and Ms I to provide immigration advice and never personally gave her such advice, as he did not see or speak to her until 1 October 2019. Ms Wu concluded that:

1. The appellant was aware of the adviser;
   
2. The adviser had provided advice and taken action to obtain the file from Immigration New Zealand;
   
3. The adviser had filed student and visitor visa applications on behalf of the couple;
   
4. The appellant had made informed decisions to apply for the visas and later to withdraw the visa applications;
   
5. The adviser had carried out the appellant’s instructions to apply for visas and later to withdraw them;
   
6. The adviser received, translated and provided Immigration New Zealand’s letters of 12 September 2019 to Ms N, so that she could give them to the appellant;
   
7. The adviser provided advice and sought instructions on the withdrawal of the applications;
   
8. The appellant dealt mostly with Ms N whose work was clerical work. There was no evidence Ms N crossed the line of clerical work into immigration advice;
   
9. Ms N sought advice from the adviser on pivotal matters;
   
10. There was an incident where Ms I appeared to provide immigration advice to the appellant, when she advised there was a high chance the application would be declined which would leave a negative record. But this was an isolated incident; and
    
11. There were possible breaches of cl 26(c) (failed to confirm in writing material discussions) and cl 2(e) (failed to personally obtain instructions to withdraw the visa applications). These breaches were mitigated and/or they were inconsequential.

[65] The Tribunal wrote to the Registrar on 27 October 2020 seeking further information.

[66] Ms Wu replied to the Tribunal on behalf of the Registrar on 10 November 2020:

1. She had investigated only the complaint dated 10 October 2020 (filed 11 October) against the adviser concerning the allegation that he facilitated the work of the unlicensed Ms N. Ms Wu is in the team which investigates licensed advisers. The other complaint, dated 12 October 2020 (filed on an unknown date), is against the unlicensed Ms I. It has therefore been allocated to an investigator in a different team. That investigation is ongoing.
   
2. The complaint about an undisclosed commission being received had not been investigated because it was not raised in the complaint or by the appellant during the investigation process.5
   
3. The “Memory records tidy up” document provided to the Tribunal in her affirmation was compiled by the adviser’s former office staff and contractors at the request of the adviser by combining all their WeChat and client information records together.6
   
4. The adviser told Ms Wu in an email on 10 November 2020 that he had phone calls with the appellant on 8 July, 17 and 19 September 2019, but he could not provide evidence as his old phone was broken and he had switched providers.
   
5. The direct meetings and communications between the adviser and the appellant (or her husband) were on 12 and 19 September, 1, 8 and 9 October 2019. Earlier, on 30 July 2019, the adviser had replied to a text from Ms N. She then passed this information onto the appellant in the same WeChat group.
   

ASSESSMENT

Delegation to unlicensed staff

5 Ms Wu refers to that part of the complaint form at 8–9 of exhibit A of her affirmation (20 August 2020).

6 Affirmation Ms Wu (20 August 2020) at 244–251 of exhibit C.

[67] The Registrar found that the adviser had potentially breached cls 26(c) and 2(e) of the Code. I agree. In respect of cl 2(e), the Registrar’s conclusion is restricted to a failure by the adviser to personally obtain the appellant’s instructions for the withdrawal of the visa applications, as Ms N and Ms I did this.

[68] As the adviser has not been heard, the findings below are provisional only. They are based on the limited evidence before the Tribunal from the appellant and the Registrar only.

[69] The breach of cl 2(e) may not be as inconsequential as the Registrar found:

1. It may not be an isolated incident; and
   
2. The appellant says she wanted to explain to Immigration New Zealand that they had been conned by the Shanghai agent, but Ms N and Ms I “persisted” with the withdrawal of the applications. There is evidence corroborating the appellant’s version since she was reluctant to withdraw the applications. This was a significant step for her to take, effectively an admission of guilt as to the provision of false documents, yet the adviser did not contact the appellant and gave no advice, at least directly to the appellant. He should have.
   

[70] The evidence does not support the Registrar’s finding that Ms N and Ms I’s taking of instructions on the withdrawal was isolated. Indeed, there is no contemporary evidence whatsoever of any communication between the adviser and the appellant on any matter before their meeting on 1 October 2019 when the appellant raised a complaint against him and his staff and sought a refund. In other words, the adviser may have delegated all client engagement on the substantive application to the staff.

[71] The adviser informed Ms Wu on 10 November 2020 that he spoke on the telephone to the appellant on 8 July, 17 and 19 September 2019, but he could not provide any evidence. It is contrary to the appellant’s assertion that there was no direct contact before 1 October 2019. The “Memory records tidy up” produced earlier by the adviser does not support his account of such discussions. They are not referred to there. Nor are there any file notes of these discussions, as required by the Code.7 The appellant’s assertion requires a proper investigation.

[72] I appreciate that there is his text on 30 July 2019 to Ms N, which may have been seen directly by the appellant. However, even that information was passed directly to

7 Code of Conduct 2014 at cl 26(a)(iii).

the appellant by Ms N. Such an isolated direct communication from the adviser to the appellant, if it can be called that, is not an adequate discharge of the adviser’s personal obligation to engage with the appellant.

[73] Hence, the potential breach of cl 2(e) may be much wider than the Registrar’s finding that it relates to the withdrawal of the visa applications only. If so, any breach could be serious and the mitigation identified by the Registrar may not be sufficient.

[74] The lack of evidence of any meeting or communication directly between the adviser and the appellant prior to 1 October 2019 also raises the question as to whether the unlicensed employees undertook work amounting to immigration advice (as against merely clerical work) on other occasions. The potential breaches of cls 2(e) and 3(c) have not been adequately investigated.

Undisclosed commission

[75] In addition, there has been no investigation of the allegation of an undisclosed commission from the school. Ms Wu says in her letter to the Tribunal on 10 November 2020 that it was not investigated because it had not been raised on the complaint form of 10 October 2019, nor was any evidence produced by the appellant or the adviser during the investigation process.

[76] While the appellant made no mention of the commission in the relevant section of the form for describing the allegations against the licensed adviser, she did refer to it in the section for describing allegations against the unlicensed Ms N.8 Of course, no evidence was produced during the investigation process because Ms Wu never asked for it.

[77] Putting to one side any criminal conduct, a complaint against an unlicensed employee is in reality a complaint against the licensed adviser who is responsible for the employee’s conduct and is bound by the Code. Any undisclosed commission received by the adviser’s company or Ms N may amount to a breach of the Code by the adviser.9 It should have been investigated.

Second complaint

[78] Surprisingly, the Registrar issued the letter declining to pursue the complaint dated 10 October 2019 without investigating the complaint made against Ms I dated

8 Ms Wu’s affirmation (20 August 2020) at 012 of exhibit A.

9 Code of Conduct 2014, cls 5, 6 & 19(l).

12 October 2019. The complaint against Ms I that an unlicensed person was performing immigration work is also a complaint against the adviser who permitted this. This complaint should have been investigated along with the other complaint expressly against the adviser and Ms N. The complaints plainly overlap.

[79] Indeed, the Registrar’s letter deals with the alleged unlicensed work of Ms I, yet the complaint expressly identifying her remains open. I suspect the appellant filed two complaint forms only because she ran out of room on the first form to identify Ms I as a second unlicensed adviser. There is really only one complaint here spread across two forms. The complaint of 12 October 2019 should be properly investigated at the same time as the first complaint.

Conclusion

[80] The investigation of the complaint dated 10 October 2019 is inadequate as to the use of unlicensed staff and any undisclosed commission. The complaint of 12 October 2019 should have been investigated alongside it.

[81] In preparing the complaints for filing in the Tribunal, the allegations will have to be put to the adviser for explanation, in accordance with s 47(2) of the Act.

[82] As noted above, the Tribunal is conscious of not having heard the adviser’s evidence. He will have an opportunity to do so when the complaint is heard by the Tribunal. No final decision regarding the merits of the complaint has been made.

OUTCOME

[83] The Tribunal will hear both complaints of the appellant, so the Registrar is to prepare and file them in the Tribunal.

ORDER FOR SUPPRESSION

[84] The Tribunal has the power to order that any part of the evidence or the name of any witness not be published.10

[85] There is no public interest in knowing the name of the adviser against whom the complaint is made nor the name of the adviser’s staff at this stage of the process. This will be revisited when the complaint is heard by the Tribunal.

10 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 50A.

[86] Nor is there any public interest in knowing the identity of the appellant.

[87] The Tribunal orders that no information identifying the adviser, his staff or the appellant is to be published other than to Immigration New Zealand.

D J Plunkett Chair