Date: 20010206
Docket: IMM-6029-99
Citation: 2001 FCT 27
Ottawa, Ontario, this 6th day of February, 2001
| PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE |
BETWEEN:
ABDOLKHALEGH KABIR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of visa officer, Veronica Coulter of the Canadian Embassy in Damascus, Syria. In the decision dated October 27, 1999, the visa officer refused the applicant's application for permanent residence on the grounds that he did not qualify as an entrepreneur under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the "Act").
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Iran. On or about July, 1998, the applicant submitted an application for permanent residence in the entrepreneur category to the Canadian Embassy in Damascus.
[3] On October 21, 1999, the applicant attended an interview in Damascus. By letter dated October 27, 1999, the visa officer refused the applicant's application for permanent residence. In the decision, the visa officer wrote as follows:
| Your plan is to open a construction company in Vancouver or Toronto, buying property and constructing buildings. As demonstrated at the interview, you have done very little research on the construction and housing industries in Canada, and knew nothing about other companies providing the same services, suppliers, customers, or Canadian business practices and building codes. Further you had no knowledge about other relevant topics such as Canada's tax system (personal and business), and construction-related labour market information. |
[4] The applicant has been self-employed since 1978 and for the past ten years has been actively involved in the construction industry in Iran. As well, the applicant owns a farm in Iran with 20 employees and the farm produces products for domestic use and export. He also owned a haberdashery store with six employees from 1978 to 1994.
[5] The applicant hires professionals and tradespeople to work on his various construction projects. The applicant purchases the properties to be developed, obtains the development permits, hires the engineers to handle the technical side of the project and is involved in the sale of the completed units.
Issue
[6] Did the visa officer make a reviewable error in finding that the applicant did not qualify as an entrepreneur?
Applicable Statutory Provisions
[7] The following sections of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 SOR/78-172 (the "Regulations") have application:
| "entrepreneur" means an immigrant (a) who intends and has the ability to establish, purchase or make a substantial investment in a business or commercial venture in Canada that will make a significant contribution to the economy and whereby employment opportunities will be created or continued in Canada for one or more Canadian citizens or permanent residents, other than the entrepreneur and his dependants, and (b) who intends and has the ability to provide active and on-going participation in the management of the business or commercial venture; |
« entrepreneur » désigne un immigrant a) qui a l'intention et qui est en mesure d'établir ou d'acheter au Canada une entreprise ou un commerce, ou d'y investir une somme importante, de façon à contribuer de manière significative à la vie économique et à permettre à au moins un citoyen canadien ou résident permanent, à part l'entrepreneur et les personnes à sa charge, d'obtenir ou de conserver un emploi, et b) qui a l'intention et est en mesure de participer activement et régulièrement à la gestion de cette entreprise ou de ce commerce; |
| 8. (1) Subject to section 11.1, for the purpose of determining whether an immigrant and the immigrant's dependants, other than a member of the family class, a Convention refugee seeking resettlement or an immigrant who intends to reside in the Province of Quebec, will be able to become successfully established in Canada, a visa officer shall assess that immigrant or, at the option of the immigrant, the spouse of that immigrant (a) in the case of an immigrant, other than an immigrant described in paragraph (b) or (c), on the basis of each of the factors listed in column I of Schedule I; . . . (c) in the case of an entrepreneur, an investor or a provincial nominee, on the basis of each of the factors listed in Column I of Schedule I, other than the factors set out in items 4 and 5 thereof. (d) [Repealed, SOR/85-1038, s. 3] (e) [Repealed, SOR/91-433, s. 3] (2) A visa officer shall award to an immigrant who is assessed on the basis of factors listed in Column I of Schedule I the appropriate number of units of assessment for each factor in accordance with the criteria set out in Column II thereof opposite that factor, but he shall not award for any factor more units of assessment than the maximum number set out in Column III thereof opposite that factor. |
| 8. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 11.1, afin de déterminer si un immigrant et les personnes à sa charge, à l'exception d'un parent, d'un réfugié au sens de la Convention cherchant à se réinstaller et d'un immigrant qui entend résider au Québec, pourront réussir leur installation au Canada, l'agent des visas apprécie l'immigrant ou, au choix de ce dernier, son conjoint: a) dans le cas d'un immigrant qui n'est pas visé aux alinéas b) ou c), suivant chacun des facteurs énumérés dans la colonne I de l'annexe I; . . . c) dans le cas d'un entrepreneur, d'un investisseur ou d'un candidat d'une province, suivant chacun des facteurs énumérés dans la colonne I de l'annexe I, sauf ceux visés aux articles 4 et 5 de cette annexe; d) [Abrogé, DORS/85-1038, art. 3] e) [Abrogé, DORS/91-433, art. 3] (2) Un agent des visas doit donner à l'immigrant qui est apprécié suivant les facteurs énumérés dans la colonne I de l'annexe I le nombre voulu de points d'appréciation pour chaque facteur, en s'en tenant au maximum fixé à la colonne III, conformément aux critères visés dans la colonne II de cette annexe vis-à-vis de ce facteur. |
| 23.1 (1) Entrepreneurs and their dependants are prescribed as a class of immigrants in respect of which landing shall be granted subject to the condition that, within a period of not more than two years after the date of an entrepreneur's landing, the entrepreneur (a) establishes, purchases or makes a substantial investment in a business or commercial venture in Canada so as to make a significant contribution to the economy and whereby employment opportunities in Canada are created or continued for one or more Canadian citizens or permanent residents, other than the entrepreneur and the entrepreneur's dependants; (b) participates actively and on an on-going basis in the management of the business or commercial venture referred to in paragraph (a); (c) furnishes, at the times and places specified by an immigration officer, evidence of efforts to comply with the terms and conditions imposed pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b); and (d) furnishes, at the time and place specified by an immigration officer, evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions imposed pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b). (2) Fiancées of sponsors and dependants of fiancées are prescribed as a class of immigrants in respect of which landing shall be granted subject to the condition that (a) within a period of 90 days after the date of a fiancée's landing, the fiancée marries the sponsor; and |
| (b) the fiancée furnishes, at the times and places specified by an immigration officer, evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions imposed. (3) The terms and conditions set out in subsections (1) and (2) are in addition to the terms and conditions that may be imposed pursuant to subsection 23(1). |
23.1 (1) Les entrepreneurs et les personnes à leur charge constituent une catégorie réglementaire d'immigrants à l'égard desquels il est obligatoire d'imposer les conditions suivantes au droit d'établissement: |
| a) dans un délai d'au plus deux ans après la date à laquelle le droit d'établissement lui est accordé, l'entrepreneur établit ou achète au Canada une entreprise ou un commerce, ou y investit une somme importante, de façon à contribuer d'une manière significative à la vie économique et à permettre à au moins un citoyen canadien ou un résident permanent, à l'exclusion de lui-même et des personnes à sa charge, d'obtenir ou de conserver un emploi; b) dans un délai d'au plus deux ans après la date à laquelle le droit d'établissement lui est accordé, l'entrepreneur participe activement et régulièrement à la gestion de l'entreprise ou du commerce visé à l'alinéa a); c) dans un délai d'au plus deux ans après la date à laquelle le droit d'établissement lui est accordé, l'entrepreneur fournit, aux dates, heures et lieux indiqués par l'agent d'immigration, la preuve qu'il s'est efforcé de se conformer aux conditions imposées aux termes des alinéas a) et b); d) dans un délai d'au plus deux ans après la date à laquelle le droit d'établissement lui est accordé, l'entrepreneur fournit, à la date, à l'heure et au lieu indiqués par l'agent d'immigration, la preuve qu'il s'est conformé aux conditions imposées aux termes des alinéas a) et b). (2) Les fiancées des répondants et les personnes à la charge des fiancées constituent une catégorie réglementaire d'immigrants à l'égard desquels il est obligatoire d'imposer les conditions suivantes au droit d'établissement: a) le mariage de la fiancée et du répondant a lieu dans les 90 jours suivant la date de l'octroi du droit d'établissement à la fiancée; b) la fiancée fournit, aux dates, heures et lieux indiqués par l'agent d'immigration, la preuve qu'elle s'est conformée aux conditions imposées . (3) Les conditions visées aux paragraphes (1) et (2) s'ajoutent à celles qui peuvent être imposées en vertu du paragraphe 23(1). |
| Analysis and Decision |
| [8] The applicant argued that the visa officer put too much emphasis on the applicant's knowledge of the details of the Canadian construction industry. The applicant states that it was unfair to require the applicant to be knowledgeable about such matters as Canadian building codes and regulations. The respondent argued that these were relevant factors to consider. |
| [9] A review of the visa officer's CAIPS Notes and decision show that the visa officer was of the view that the applicant, at the time of his application, should have knowledge of Canadian building codes and Canada's tax system (personal and business). It is my view that a prospective entrepreneur should not be required to have a knowledge of Canadian building codes. An entrepreneur can hire architects and engineers to provide and apply this information. As well, an entrepreneur should not be expected to have a knowledge of Canada's tax system, both personal and business. It is my opinion that the visa officer took the above mentioned irrelevant considerations into account when determining whether or not the applicant met the requirements of an entrepreneur. |
| [10] Even if I should hold that the other considerations given by the visa officer for her decision were proper, the decision cannot stand as I have found that some considerations were irrelevant. In B'Ghiel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 45 Imm. L.R. (2d) 198 (F.C.T.D.) at page 200, Hugessen J. of this Court stated: |
| . . . [T]he decision cannot stand. . . . [T] there are a number of other considerations which were properly taken into account. It is, of course, quite impossible for me to know what weight the Immigration Officer gave to each of those factors and indeed what weight was attached to the factors which were improperly considered. It may be, given the rather fluid nature of the assessment of personal suitability, that even if the improperly considered factors had been excluded the ultimate score would not have been very different. Since it is impossible to tell, the only solution is to send the matter back for reassessment and . . . such reassessment should be of the entire application not merely of the item "Personal Suitability". . . . |
| The standard of review to be applied to the visa officer's decision is reasonableness simpliciter. In this case, I cannot tell from the visa officer's decision letter or from the CAIPS Notes how much weight she attached to these irrelevant factors in reaching her decision. Therefore, I must send the matter back for reassessment. |
| [11] The application for judicial review is therefore allowed and the matter is to be sent back for determination before a different visa officer. |
| [12] Neither party wanted to have a serious question of general importance certified pursuant to subsection 83(1) of the Act. |
| ORDER |
| [13] IT IS ORDERED that the application for judicial review is allowed. |
| "John A. O'Keefe" |
| J.F.C.C. |
| Ottawa, Ontario |
| February 6, 2001 |