Complaint against immigration adviser partly upheld by Tribunal

The applications were for a student permit, a graduate-job-search visa, a work visa, an expression of interest and a residence visa. Photo / iStock / Getty Images

An immigration adviser falsified a client's application for New Zealand residency, although he says he's innocent and simply passed on details given to him.

A complaint made against Viveg Lingam Mudaliar has been partly upheld by the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal.

In a recently released decision, the tribunal said the complainant, and his wife, had engaged Mudaliar to assist them with immigration issues, and between 2010 and 2012 he submitted immigration papers for her.

The applications were for a student permit, a graduate-job-search visa, a work visa, an expression of interest and a residence visa.

The tribunal said Mr Mudaliar and his support staff prepared employment agreements and job descriptions to support the woman's work and residence visa applications.

The first set of documents was for a work visa application for the woman to work as a beauty therapist.

However, a residence visa application Mudaliar later submitted for the woman said she worked as a "massage therapist", not a beauty therapist.

Immigration NZ wrote to Mudaliar about the discrepancy.

The woman's employer confirmed she was a beauty therapist and did not provide therapeutic massage.

Mr Mudaliar told Immigration NZ his support staff prepared the job descriptions.

Its officials declined the woman's residency application because the job description submitted was false and misleading, and accused her of falsifying information.

The woman's husband then laid his complaint against Mr Mudaliar to the tribunal.

He claimed he was "duped" and said the woman was responsible for any false information provided to Immigration NZ.

The tribunal disagreed and found Mr Mudaliar breached the industry code and engaged in dishonest and misleading behaviour.

"I accordingly find Mr Mudaliar dishonestly prepared and submitted documentation to support the applicant's residence application," the tribunal chair said.

"He did so on his own initiative and the applicant relied on his professional advice that the documentation was correct, and met the relevant immigration requirements."

The tribunal dismissed some parts of the complaint and said both parties could make submissions on appropriate sanctions, including potential orders for costs and compensation.