Date: 20030113
Docket: IMM-586-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 26
Toronto, Ontario, Monday the 13th day of January, 2003
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
BALBIR SINGH SANDAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Balbir Singh Sandal (the "Applicant") applies for judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer Anne Vanden Bosch (the "Visa Officer"), dated December 14, 2000. The Visa Officer denied the Applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of India, submitted his application for permanent residence to the Canadian High Commission in London in March 1999. He included his wife and four children as accompanying dependents. He applied as an "entrepreneur".
[3] The Applicant had resided in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") for more than twenty years prior to seeking admission into Canada. In the UAE, he had worked in the construction business from 1976 to 1986. In 1986, he established a construction business in which he held a 49% interest. Due to a downturn in the construction business, the Applicant changed his business activities to transportation in 1997 and bought trucks to transport goods to nearby countries. When he attended for the interview, the Applicant employed seven workers and operated four second-hand trucks.
[4] The Visa Officer found that the Applicant had a bona fide business but she rejected his application for permanent residence in Canada because she was not satisfied that he met the definition of an entrepreneur as defined in section 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-182, as amended, (the "Regulations"). In her opinion, the Applicant's plans to establish a business in Canada were poorly researched and he was unable to explain how he would make the business feasible in the Canadian marketplace. She also concluded that there would be no significant economic benefit to Canada from the establishment of a trucking business and that the Applicant had not shown that he had the ability to successfully establish a business in Canada.
[5] In my opinion, the decision of the Visa Officer is reversible because there is evidence on the record concerning the Applicant's intention to explore the possibility of purchasing a franchise in Canada. This evidence was not considered by the Visa Officer. She erred by failing to consider this evidence which was relevant, having regard to the constituent elements of the definition of "entrepreneur" in section 2(1) of the Regulations.
[6] The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different visa officer for determination in accordance with the law. There is no question for certification.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different visa officer for determination in accordance with the law. There is no question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-586-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: BALBIR SINGH SANDAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J.
DATED: MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. M. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Mr. Tamrat Gebeyehu
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: M. Max Chaudhary
Barrister & Solicitor
18 Wynford Drive
Suite 707
North York, Ontario
M3C 3S2
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:20030113
Docket: IMM-586-01
BETWEEN:
BALBIR SINGH SANDAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER