In just over two weeks this month, an Auckland-based immigration adviser has been found guilty in six separate cases of misconduct and fraud, including one in which she was found guilt of luring a Chinese national to pay cash in return for a visa and a promise of residency.     

The Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal has upheld six separate complaints against Qian Yu, also known as Heidi Castelucci. The decisions, issued between February 3-18, concern different clients. In every case, the complaint was upheld, and several include findings of dishonesty.

One of the rulings sets out a job-linked payment arrangement that the tribunal found unlawful. The tribunal order notes such conduct could attract sanctions including cancellation of Yu’s licence and preventing her from reapplying. The tribunal has, for now, called for submissions against its decision before announcing any sanctions.   

According to the court decision on February 3, the complainant engaged Yu in October 2023 to assist with obtaining a work visa. He met Yu and her husband for what was described as an employment interview. That same day, he paid $5,557.16, followed by more payments of $3,695.72 and $995.

The following month, the complainant signed an employment agreement with a company connected to Yu’s husband. The contract described a role as an administrative worker, paid $29.66 per hour for 30 hours per week. His Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) was approved in April 2024 and the complainant travelled to New Zealand.

The tribunal found that once onshore, the complainant was asked to perform tasks quite different from the administrative duties described in the employment documentation submitted to Immigration New Zealand (INZ). He was required to drive Yu’s children to and from school. The tribunal concluded that the employment presented to INZ did not reflect the reality of the work undertaken.

About three months after he arrived, the complainant’s employment was terminated. The tribunal observed that on the same day Yu provided him with a template resignation letter and encouraged him to sign it, suggesting that doing so could allow him to secure continuing employment with the agency.

Days later, Yu proposed a new arrangement to sponsor the complainant for residence. This involved changing his job title and entering into a new employment contract for a business development manager role at $100,000 per year, starting the same month. The proposal also involved structured payments said to cover tax and related costs.

The tribunal noted Yu told the complainant that tax alone would cost the company about $20,000 per year, and that the total cost for him and his family would be $110,000, payable in installments. She also said that if $110,000 was too high, the amount could be reduced to $70,000.

A few days later, the complainant signed the new employment agreement and paid $7,500. The complainant later alleged that he had paid $25,588.32 in total in unlawful premiums to secure the role.

The tribunal concluded that Yu sought payment for employment with her husband’s company in order to secure a work visa, creating a conflict of interest that was not disclosed in writing. It found that the employment presented to INZ was not genuine in the way described in the visa documentation, that the visa application was supported on a false premise, and that Yu gave advice contrary to immigration, employment and tax law, including advice about working and being paid in cash. The tribunal found this conduct to be dishonest and in breach of the Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct.

The February rulings follow earlier reporting by RNZ in 2025 that Yu and Liberty Consulting Group were under investigation by the Immigration Advisers Authority. RNZ reported that multiple complaints had been laid against her and that some had already been referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal.

The story also highlighted concerns about migrants allegedly being asked to pay large sums in connection with job offers linked to visa pathways. The RNZ reports raised broader concerns about job-selling risks within the AEWV system, and how migrants seeking residence could be vulnerable to arrangements tied to employment sponsorship.

The tribunal's February judgment against Yu provides a formal regulatory determination of one such arrangement. It sits alongside five other rulings the same month involving Yu. In those cases, the tribunal upheld complaints involving lodging the wrong visa category and providing a fabricated decline letter, telling clients visa applications had been lodged when they had not, withholding draft applications and Immigration New Zealand correspondence and forging a client’s signature.

Across the cases, the tribunal also identified repeated failures to provide written service agreements, disclose licence status, act under required supervision, and properly engage with the regulatory process.