Date: 20010424
Docket: IMM-3384-99
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 380
Ottawa, Ontario, Tuesday the 24th day of April 2001
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
BETWEEN:
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Notwithstanding the thorough submission of counsel for Ms. Liu, I have not been persuaded that the visa officer committed any reviewable error in determining that Ms. Liu did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.
[2] Ms. Liu applied for admission in the self-employed category in the intended occupation of "Interior Design & Contractor". The visa officer refused Ms. Liu's application in the self-employed category because she found Ms. Liu did not meet the definition of a self-employed person. The visa officer swore in her affidavit that when asked if it was Ms. Liu's intention to be a self-employed person in Canada, Ms. Liu responded that she intended to start a business in Canada, but that she did not consider herself a self-employed person. The visa officer noted that even if Ms. Liu had demonstrated an ability to establish or purchase a business that would create employment for Ms. Liu, the visa officer was not satisfied that any artistic, cultural or significant economic benefits would arise as a result of Ms. Liu's proposed self-employment in Canada.
[3] The visa officer went on to assess the application in the category of entrepreneur because Ms. Liu stated that she "intended to invest $25,000.00 to open an interior design company in Toronto". The visa officer found that Ms. Liu did not meet the definition of an entrepreneur as the visa officer found her to lack the ability to establish a successful business in Canada.
[4] In substance, Ms. Liu raised three issues with respect to the visa officer's decision. It was asserted that:
i) The visa officer was incompetent, did not have an open mind, and failed to comprehend Ms. Liu's intended occupation;
ii) The visa officer imported extraneous criteria into her assessment in the self-employed category including a requirement for written business plan, knowledge of competition or general business climate in Toronto, managerial training and experience, business preparation, and that she not subcontract duties;
iii) The visa officer erred in the assessment as an entrepreneur because she ought to have found that Ms. Liu's resources were said to be sufficient to open the business and the visa officer further erred in assuming or requiring that the business would be operated immediately upon immigration to Canada.
The submission that the assessment was improper because of failure to have proper regard to the provisions of subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 was not pursued in oral argument.
[5] On the record before me I am not in any way satisfied that the visa officer was either incompetent or biased. Nor can I find any basis on which to conclude that the visa officer failed to understand the nature of Ms. Liu's intended occupation.
[6] Similarly, I have not been persuaded that the visa officer erred by importing extraneous criteria into the assessment. In my view, the factors considered by the visa officer as listed above, and now impugned by Ms. Liu, were all relevant to and directed to the purpose of discerning whether Ms. Liu had the ability to establish a business in Canada, thereby meeting the definition of a self-employed person.
[7] Finally, with respect to the assessment of Ms. Liu in the entrepreneur category, I am satisfied that the visa officer's conclusion regarding Ms. Liu's financial and other ability to establish a business or commercial venture was not so unreasonable as to warrant judicial intervention. I cannot find that she considered irrelevant factors or ignored relevant factors or required that the business be operated immediately upon Ms. Liu's arrival in Canada. While I agree with counsel for Ms. Liu that it would have been open to the visa officer to have reached the opposite conclusion, I find no basis on which to set aside the visa officer's decision.
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel posed no serious question for certification.
JUDGMENT
[9] IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"