Photo: 123RF
An immigration adviser who failed to communicate with his client unwittingly facilitated a migration scam, according to a disciplinary tribunal.
Jiaxian Jason Liu arranged a recovery visa for the man in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023.
The Chinese client paid $16,666 for a six-month visa and a job as a truck driver's assistant.
"In fact, there was not even that work available," said the decision from the immigration advisers complaints and disciplinary tribunal. "The complainant paid a substantial sum for a non-existent job. 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 practice involves a licensed adviser being the person responsible for the final visa application, while allowing an agent or associate to manage engagement with migrants and look after their interests.
"He says he was misled by the agent and associate into believing they had authority to act on behalf of the complainant and were passing on advice and information from Mr Liu. The Tribunal accepts this, but he made no effort to find out directly from the complainant whether the instructions he was receiving [to obtain a short-term visa for flood recovery work as a truck driver's assistant] were what the complainant was expecting."
The tribunal heard the client had been in touch with a Chinese agency, and the director of a New Zealand company.
"He was told by the director that work would be arranged. It was not. He never met the employer. He did not even know the employer's name or the job."
The tribunal found Liu, director of Shuncheng Immigration in Auckland, in breach of six aspects of the professional code.
Liu told the tribunal he never intended to bypass any protocols and expressed deep regret.
"His own home had been flooded during Cyclone Gabrielle. His eagerness to contribute to the urgent recovery, coupled with the distress of the flooding of his own home, inadvertently led to the omissions in his professional conduct.
"He had always strived to act honestly and fairly. He was misled into believing that the agent and the associate had sufficient authority to speak on behalf of the complainant. He had kept the agent informed, not knowing that the agent had not kept the complainant informed."
The tribunal will rule on sanctions at a later hearing.
