Unauthorized practitioners (UAPs) who claim they are protected under privacy rights to avoid showing a license or proof of authorization to provide immigration services are fundamentally misinterpreting and misrepresenting the legal requirements. Each country with regulated immigration services has clear legal frameworks in place that prioritize client protection and public transparency over individual privacy when it comes to licensing disclosure. Let’s explore specific legal provisions in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK that reinforce these requirements:

1. Canada – Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Section 91

Under Section 91 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), only authorized professionals may offer immigration advice or services for a fee. Authorized individuals include members of a Canadian provincial law society, notaries of Québec, and licensed members of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC). Importantly:

• Section 91(2) mandates that only licensed professionals can offer immigration representation or advice for a fee.
• The CICC maintains a publicly accessible registry of its members to allow clients to verify the status and legitimacy of immigration consultants. Privacy rights cannot override this mandate, as public disclosure of licensing status is essential to prevent unlicensed practice.

Consequences: Offering immigration advice without CICC licensing, or refusing to verify credentials, can lead to penalties, including fines of up to $200,000 or imprisonment for up to two years.

2. Australia – Migration Act 1958, Section 280

Australia’s Migration Act 1958 provides a robust regulatory framework that only allows registered migration agents or Australian legal practitioners to provide immigration services:

• Section 280 of the Migration Act stipulates that individuals must be registered with the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (OMARA) to legally offer immigration services. This section is designed to protect clients by ensuring that only qualified professionals, who meet competency and ethical standards, are allowed to practice.
• OMARA maintains a searchable, public register of all licensed migration agents, allowing clients to confirm the status of their agents. Privacy arguments do not exempt an individual from public verification as part of regulatory compliance.

Consequences: Failure to show proof of licensing and unauthorized practice may result in severe penalties under Section 281, including fines and up to 10 years of imprisonment for breaches involving false representation or unregistered practice.

3. New Zealand – Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, Sections 6 and 11

New Zealand’s Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 mandates that anyone providing immigration advice, whether within New Zealand or overseas, must be licensed by the Immigration Advisers Authority (IAA) unless they fall under specific exemptions:

• Section 6 specifies that no person may provide immigration advice unless licensed or exempt, with specific exemptions that are strictly defined.
• Section 11 mandates that IAA publishes a list of licensed advisers, accessible to the public to ensure transparency. This allows clients to verify the credentials of their advisers, emphasizing that public safety takes precedence over individual privacy claims in this context.

Consequences: Violating licensing requirements can lead to prosecution, including fines and potential imprisonment, especially if the unlicensed adviser has misrepresented their qualifications.

4. United Kingdom – Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Section 84

The UK’s Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 regulates who can provide immigration advice through the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC):

• Section 84 of the Act states that only individuals authorized by the OISC, or exempt professionals like those part of certain legal societies, can legally provide immigration advice. OISC mandates transparency, with a public registry for clients to verify an adviser’s registration.
• The public nature of the OISC’s registry aligns with the Act’s purpose of protecting clients from unqualified advisers. Privacy claims cannot be used to avoid this public verification requirement.

Consequences: Unauthorized practice under the Act is a criminal offense, and violations may result in significant fines or imprisonment for practitioners operating without OISC authorization.

Why Privacy Claims Do Not Override Licensing Requirements

Privacy rights do not apply to an individual's licensing status when their professional qualifications directly impact public safety. These immigration laws are intended to protect clients from unqualified practitioners and reduce the risks of fraud or exploitation. Regulatory authorities in these countries mandate transparency so that clients can verify their consultants' credentials, a requirement that overrides individual privacy in this professional context.

When UAPs refuse to display licensing information, citing privacy, it is a red flag of non-compliance. Potential clients should be aware that legitimate professionals in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK are required to demonstrate their qualifications openly. Regulatory bodies provide online registries specifically to ensure that the public has access to this information and can make informed decisions, underscoring that transparency is essential in immigration services.