The Penalties for Giving Unlicensed Immigration Advice
Giving immigration advice without a licence in New Zealand carries up to NZ$100,000 and seven years' imprisonment. Falsely claiming to be licensed, and employing an unlicensed adviser, each carry up to NZ$10,000 and two years. The offence applies whether or not the adviser was paid.
Quick Facts
| The statute | Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 |
| Providing immigration advice without a licence | Up to NZ$100,000 fine and/or 7 years' imprisonment |
| Falsely claiming to be a licensed immigration adviser | Up to NZ$10,000 and/or 2 years' imprisonment |
| Employing an unlicensed adviser | Up to NZ$10,000 and/or 2 years' imprisonment |
| Other offences — false information, obstruction, failure to notify | Up to NZ$10,000 |
| Paid or unpaid | The offence applies "whether or not for gain or reward" |
| Who prosecutes | The Immigration Advisers Authority |
| Effect on the applicant | INZ will refuse to accept or will decline an application naming an unlicensed adviser |
| Expressly outside the regime | Publishing generic, publicly available information |
| Checked | August 2026 |
The penalty table
| Offence | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|
| Providing immigration advice without a licence | Up to NZ$100,000 fine and/or 7 years' imprisonment |
| Falsely claiming to be a licensed immigration adviser | Up to NZ$10,000 and/or 2 years' imprisonment |
| Employing an unlicensed adviser | Up to NZ$10,000 and/or 2 years' imprisonment |
| Other offences — providing false information, obstruction, failure to notify | Up to NZ$10,000 |
These are maximum penalties. What a court imposes in any particular case depends on the facts, and we are not in a position to predict that for anyone.
Seven years is unusually severe
Seven years' imprisonment for giving immigration advice without a licence is severe by international standards. Most comparable countries treat unlicensed immigration advice as a regulatory or consumer-protection matter with a fine attached. New Zealand treats it as serious criminal offending.
Two features of the New Zealand approach explain the difference in tone.
The offence does not require payment. The statutory definition of immigration advice covers advice given "whether or not for gain or reward". So a person who takes no money at all can commit the NZ$100,000 offence. The mischief Parliament targeted is bad advice, not the taking of money — and unpaid bad advice harms an applicant just as much.
The offence does not require intent to deceive. Falsely claiming to be licensed is a separate, lesser offence. The serious one is simply giving the advice without the licence. Someone genuinely trying to help, who never claimed to be anything, is still within the primary offence if they tailored immigration information to another person's circumstances.
Who is exposed, beyond the adviser
The offence of employing an unlicensed adviser is the provision most often overlooked, and it reaches well past immigration consultancies.
| Who | How the exposure arises |
|---|---|
| Employers | Engaging someone to advise migrant staff on their visas |
| Recruiters and labour-hire firms | Offering "visa support" to candidates through an unlicensed person |
| Education agents and providers | Using an offshore agent for advice on anything other than student visa applications |
| Immigration firms | Allowing unlicensed staff to give advice rather than restricting them to clerical work |
| Community organisations | Where the work becomes systematic and falls outside an exemption |
The education-agent row is the sharpest one in practice. The offshore exemption covers student visa applications only — an offshore agent advising on work, visitor or residence applications is not exempt. A New Zealand business that engages such an agent may be employing an unlicensed adviser. See who is exempt from immigration adviser licensing.
The cost that falls on the applicant
The penalties above punish the offender. A separate consequence falls on the person who paid.
INZ's position is that where an application names an adviser who is not on the register, it "will refuse to accept or will decline the application."
So an unlicensed adviser can cost an applicant:
- the fee paid to the adviser, which is not recoverable through the licensing system because the Tribunal's refund power applies to licensed advisers
- the INZ application fee and immigration levy, which are not refunded once an application has been processed, even where it is declined
- the International Visitor Levy, which is never refunded
- the time — often months, and sometimes a visa expiry or a travel date
That combination is why checking a name on a free public register before paying anyone is the highest-value minute in this entire process. See how to check an immigration adviser's licence. If money has already changed hands, work through you've paid an immigration scammer: what to do now.
What conduct actually triggers the offence
The offence turns on tailoring, not on job titles or invoices. The Immigration Advisers Authority states the test as: providing information becomes giving immigration advice "when you tailor it to the particular circumstances of an individual or give guidance or assistance to the individual."
| Inside the offence | Outside it |
|---|---|
| Telling a named person which visa to apply for | Publishing what each visa category requires |
| Assessing whether someone meets a criterion | Publishing the criterion |
| Drafting or reviewing an application, or advising what to write | Typing what the applicant dictated, unaltered |
| Explaining why a person's application was declined and what they should do | Publishing the common reasons applications are declined |
| Advising a person on their chances | Publishing approval and refusal statistics |
| Running a tool that evaluates a reader's circumstances | Publishing a list of criteria |
The full analysis is in what counts as immigration advice.
The information exemption is express
Publishing generic, publicly available information is expressly outside the licensing regime. The statutory definition excludes information that is publicly available or that is prepared or made available by the Department, and INZ's own example of exempt content is "generic information from this website."
The exemption is not a technicality and it is not grudging. Parliament wanted immigration information published widely; what it regulated was the act of applying that information to an individual. That is the basis on which this site operates, and it is the reason the site carries no quiz, no eligibility calculator, no chatbot and no comment threads — each of those would evaluate a particular reader's circumstances.
Who enforces it
The Immigration Advisers Authority prosecutes unlicensed immigration advice. The IAA also publishes an enforcement policy alongside the Code of Conduct, the competency standards and its judicial and tribunal decisions.
Note the difference between two routes, because sending a report to the wrong place costs weeks:
| Situation | Where it goes |
|---|---|
| The person was licensed and behaved badly | Registrar of Immigration Advisers → may be referred to the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, which can cancel a licence and order a refund of fees |
| The person was never licensed | The Immigration Advisers Authority, as a criminal matter. There is no Code of Conduct to breach and no refund power |
The routes are set out in how to complain about an immigration adviser.
What we could not verify
Two things, stated plainly rather than filled in.
Prosecution numbers and outcomes. We did not locate published statistics on how often these offences are prosecuted, or what sentences have actually been imposed. The maximums above are the law; they are not a prediction of any particular case.
Any 2025–2026 changes to the adviser regime. None were located in our research. If something has changed since August 2026, www.iaa.govt.nz is where it will appear.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the penalty for giving immigration advice without a licence in New Zealand?
Up to NZ$100,000 in fines and/or seven years' imprisonment. The offence applies whether or not the person charged for the advice.
Is it illegal to give free immigration advice in New Zealand?
Yes, unless you are licensed or exempt. The statutory definition covers advice given "whether or not for gain or reward", so charging nothing is not a defence. Informal or family advice that is not systematic and not for a fee is separately exempt.
Can an employer be prosecuted for using an unlicensed immigration adviser?
Employing an unlicensed adviser is an offence in its own right, carrying up to NZ$10,000 and/or two years' imprisonment. It applies to employers, recruiters and education agents, not only to immigration firms.
What is the penalty for pretending to be a licensed immigration adviser?
Up to NZ$10,000 and/or two years' imprisonment. It is a separate, lesser offence from giving the advice itself, which carries the NZ$100,000 and seven-year maximum.
Does publishing immigration information on a website need a licence?
No. Providing generic, publicly available information is expressly outside the licensing regime. A licence becomes necessary when content is tailored to an individual's circumstances.
Who prosecutes unlicensed immigration advice in New Zealand?
The Immigration Advisers Authority. Where the person was licensed and the issue is conduct rather than licensing, the complaint goes instead to the Registrar of Immigration Advisers and may be referred to the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal.
What happens to my visa application if my adviser was unlicensed?
INZ's stated position is that it will refuse to accept or will decline an application that names an adviser who is not on the register. Fees and levies already paid are not refunded once an application has been processed.
