Tribunal says adviser 'facilitated what appears to have been an immigration scam'
An Auckland immigration adviser, Jiaxian Jason Liu, has been found in breach of multiple provisions of the Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct 2014 by the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal.
The ruling comes after a complaint by a Chinese national, HG, who was seeking a work visa for post-flood recovery employment in New Zealand.
The Tribunal determined that Liu's actions in handling the case were negligent and failed to meet professional standards, leaving him facing potential sanctions.
The case began in March 2023 when Liu was contacted by an unlicensed agent, ZA, who claimed to represent employers in need of workers for recovery efforts following severe flooding in New Zealand.
The agent introduced HG to Liu for assistance with obtaining a work visa. The adviser however, failed to directly engage with the complainant throughout the process, instead communicating solely with the agent and his associate.
Liu did not meet with HG, nor did he obtain the complainant's direct instructions for the visa application.
According to the complaint, HG paid a substantial fee of RMB75,000 (around NZ$16,666) for the visa and employment services but was left in the dark about key details of the application.
He claimed that he was never informed about the job offer or the employer's details, and he had never signed a professional services agreement with Liu. After arriving in New Zealand, HG still had no idea about Liu's role in his visa application.
The Tribunal's decision focused on several key breaches of the Code by Liu, most notably his failure to personally engage with HG.
It found that Liu's reliance on the unlicensed agent and associate to act on behalf of the complainant without any direct communication or confirmation of the complainant's instructions was a serious violation.
"There was not even that work available. The complainant paid a substantial sum for a non-existent job," the tribunal said. "By cutting the complainant out of the communications, Mr Liu facilitated what appears to have been an immigration scam perpetrated on the complainant though there is no evidence Mr Liu knew of the fraud."
"The Tribunal has remarked on this a number of times before. This is the danger of rubber stamping."
The Tribunal also found that Mr. Liu had failed to provide HG with a written services agreement, a key obligation under the Code.
Additionally, Liu did not provide evidence of his licensure to either HG or the agent, and he did not allow HG to review the visa application before it was submitted.
Moreover, the Tribunal noted that Liu had failed to provide timely updates to HG regarding the status of the visa application and its eventual approval.
