A SNAPSHOT OF IACDT DECISIONS
The following decisions provide a snapshot of the IACDT’s opinion on fair and reasonable fees:
ZR v Kim [2024] NZIACDT 06: The Tribunal held that a fee of NZ$4000 for a straightforward work visa application was “high, but not outrageously so” and did not breach clause 20 of the Code of Conduct.
LB v Luv [2024] NZIACDT 17: The Tribunal noted that generally a fee of NZ$7,650 for a Skilled Migrant residence application, including an expression of interest, would be reasonable. However, in this case the fee of NZ$7,650 was not reasonable as the expression of interest was futile. Note that no breach of clause 20 was found as the head of complaint alleged the fee was unreasonable as no refund was provided, rather than because the expression of interest was futile.
TC v MacLeod [2023] NZIACDT 4: The Tribunal found that the fee of NZ$22,540 (based on an hourly rate of NZ$400/hour) charged for an Entrepreneur residence application was unreasonable and the adviser had failed to work in a manner which did not unnecessarily increase fees. The adviser had misunderstood a financial requirement and spent additional time liaising with Immigration New Zealand, reviewing financial documents, and attempting to resolve the incorrect advice he had provided.
BC v Murthy [2023] NZIACDT [8]: The adviser charged a fee of NZ$4,025 for a Skilled Migrant residence application, including an expression of interest. The Tribunal accepted that a fee of NZ$4,025 for a Skilled Migrant residence application was reasonable. In this case, the Tribunal found no breach of clause 20 of the Code Conduct, but the adviser did breach her professional obligations relating to managing client funds and refunds.
Singh v Patel [2019] NZIACDT 17: The Tribunal considered that a fee of NZ$15,000 for a Parent Retirement residence application was reasonable. In this case the adviser had only charged NZ$10,000 up until lodgement and then refunded NZ$5000 due to the complaint and the intervention of the Immigration Advisers Authority. The IACDT held the fee of NZ$10,000 that the adviser charged was not unfair or unreasonable.
FEES AND A SUPERVISOR’S OBLIGATIONS
A person who holds a provisional immigration adviser licence must be supervised. The supervisor must hold a full licence and both provisional licence holders and full licence holders are bound by the Code of Conduct.
In XI v Shi and Sun [2026] NZIACDT 03, Ms Shi, a provisional licence holder, charged RMB 35,000 (approximately NZ$7,950) for an Accredited Employer work visa. This fee included the Immigration New Zealand visa application fee of NZ$750 and her professional fee of NZ$7,200. The Immigration Advisers Authority provided evidence that the market rate for professional fees for an Accredited Employer work visa ranged from NZ$1,800 to NZ$3,300, and the Tribunal accepted this range as reasonable [95]. The Tribunal noted that there were no unusual circumstances, Ms Shi was relatively inexperienced, the application was straightforward, the case was not urgent, and the company’s standard fee for similar applications was NZ$4,000 [94]. Given these factors, the Tribunal determined the fee of NZ$7,200 was excessive and Ms Shi had breached clause 20 of the Code of Conduct. The Tribunal went on to consider Mr Sun’s obligations as Ms Shi’s supervisor. The Tribunal noted that Mr Sun was aware of the fee to be charged and he was “neither professional nor diligent and did not act with due care in his supervision of Ms Shi by permitting her to charge such an extravagant fee for a simple application” [105]. The Tribunal held that Mr Sun breached clause 1 of the Code of Conduct. As a consequence, he was cautioned and ordered to pay a financial penalty of $1500. This decision serves as a reminder to supervisors to ensure that the fees their supervisees are charging are fair and reasonable.
IMMIGRATION, RECRUITMENT AND SETTLEMENT SERVICES
There have been several IACDT decisions over the last few years that address fees where the adviser has offered additional recruitment and/or settlement services on top of immigration services. The IACDT has made clear that if an adviser bundles together immigration and other related services, the adviser’s professional obligations extend to the related services.
In JY v Wen [2025] NZIACDT 08 Ms Wen charged a fee of RMB 40,000 for a Specific Purpose or Event (recovery) work visa and employment and settlement services. Her written agreement only recorded a fee of RMB 20,000 (approximately NZ$4,550-NZ$4,700) for the work visa. The Tribunal found that the employment and settlement services formed part of Ms Wen’s overall service, and she could not avoid her professional obligations by omitting these services or the associated fee in the written agreement [51]. The Tribunal held neither the RMB 40,000 fee nor the RMB 20,000 fee were fair or reasonable, and observed that RMB 20,000 was “very high for a work visa of only six months duration with straightforward criteria” [53].
In YT v CX [2024] NZIACDT 15 the adviser charged RMB 80,000 (approximately NZ$18,500) for immigration and settlement services. The Tribunal found that a fee of RMB 80,000 solely for a work visa application would be “grossly excessive.” However, CX provided “extensive pre- and post-arrival services” and the Tribunal determined that the fee of RMB 80,000 was not unreasonable in this case [55].
In MM v Ma [2024] NZIACDT 07 Ms Ma charged a fee of RMB 85,000 (approximately NZ$19,500) for her services. This fee was not recorded in her written agreement, but the Tribunal presumed it was for employment and accommodation services, together with immigration services for a work visa. The Tribunal held that the fee of RMB 85,000 for preparing and lodging a work visa application, the only service specified in the written agreement, was “grossly excessive” and a breach of clause 20 of the Code of Conduct [75].
In SM v Kim [2023] NZIACDT 5 the Tribunal determined the immigration service and recruitment service were bundled together and consequently Mr Kim’s “professional obligations as a licensed immigration adviser extended to the employment service” [73]. In this case, Mr Kim charged a fee of NZ$18,505 for immigration and recruitment services. The IACDT dismissed the head of complaint relating to clause 20 of the Code of Conduct as no evidence had been provided as to what a reasonable fee for recruitment services was.
Some significant fees have been charged by advisers for recruitment and settlement services. Advisers should consider carefully whether they intend for the recruitment and settlement services to be covered by their licensed immigration adviser professional obligations or not, and to plan how and by whom their services will be provided (such as by one company or separate companies).
CONCLUSION
Most advisers have good awareness of the fees being charged in industry through online research, industry connections or membership of professional bodies. It is important that licensed advisers can justify any fees they are charging having regard to the individual case, and they can provide evidence to support any rationale for the fee charged. Advisers offering recruitment and settlement services in addition to immigration services should be aware that their professional obligations as a licensed adviser encompass all services when these are bundled together.
Appley Boyd is the Programme Manager (Immigration) at Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology and a licensed immigration adviser. She completed her LLB at the University of Sydney in 2001 and was admitted as a lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 2006. She has previously worked for the Fiji Legal Aid Commission and Immigration New Zealand. She became a licensed immigration adviser in 2014 and has been working as an adviser ever since. Along with managing the Graduate Diploma in New Zealand Immigration Advice qualification, she also runs her own business, Star Immigration.