Rebuke for dishonest immigration adviser

An immigration adviser who copied and pasted the signature of a woman trying to renew her work visa has been rebuked for dishonest and misleading behaviour.

The adviser Victoria Adele Broadway was a licensed immigration adviser based in Victoria, Australia and was acting for a United States woman who lived in New Zealand on a work visa.

The woman wanted to renew her visa and was recommended to Broadway by her employer. A written agreement for immigration services was entered between Broadway and the employer but not the applicant.

After filing the work visa application on behalf of the applicant, both were informed by Immigration New Zealand that the employer was included on the Labour Inspectorate’s list of non-compliant employers and was therefore not able to support the application. Broadway then told INZ the applicant had a new job offer from a different employer and filed a new employment contract, but INZ then raised a number of issues.

Then the woman told Broadway that rather than pursue the new job offer, she would return to America.

When Broadway applied to the Immigration Advisers Authority to renew her licence three months later, she was informed that this file had been selected by the authority for review.

Broadway sent an email to the applicant asking her to sign “the last page on the form” and write a short email how she found working with her as her adviser. But the applicant replied and expressed confusion about the document and that she did not feel comfortable signing the form. Two weeks later, Broadway sent a copy of the written agreement purportedly signed by the applicant which was found to have been falsely inserted.

The applicant lodged a complaint against Broadway with the authority, which was referred to the tribunal.

Tribunal chairman David Plunkett said he regarded Broadway’s conduct in belatedly seeking a signature on the services agreement as unprofessional. “She truthfully advised the complainant at the start that it was in context of her licence renewal, but later misrepresented her request as being necessary to protect the complainant and close her file. She did not disclose that the real purpose was to send it to the authority.”

Plunkett found that on the basis of her presentation of a false document to the authority, Broadway’s conduct satisfied the statutory ground of complaint of dishonest and misleading behaviour.

The complaint against her was upheld.