Date: 20070117
Docket: IMM-152-06
Citation: 2007 FC 41
Ottawa, Ontario, January 17,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
BETWEEN:
WEI
BIAO CHEN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of a
visa officer’s decision dated November 18, 2005 refusing the applicant’s
application for permanent residence as a Québec investor on the grounds that
the visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant is not inadmissible to Canada. The applicant is a businessman in China, and the visa officer is based in
Hong Kong.
Background
The applicant’s application under the Quebec investor category
[2]
The applicant, Mr. Wei Biao Chen, is a citizen
and resident of China. In June
2002, he applied to the Province of Québec for a nomination under the Québec
investor category. After attending an interview with the Service d’immigration
du Québec (the Service), he received a letter from the Service advising that he
did not meet the definition of the investor class under the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations). The Service advised the
applicant that the letter would be considered a refusal unless he submitting
the following documentation to the Service within 60 days:
An explanation from an accountant in relation
to the amounts of 3.7 and 2.35 million RMB [renminbi] shown under “Other
Payables” and with respect to the revolving fund set up under the chengbao
[sub-contract agreement] of 1996.
The applicant submitted the requested
information and, on March 29, 2004, the province of Québec issued the applicant a selection certificate.
[3]
In conjunction with his application for
selection under the Quebec
investor category, the applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada under the investor immigrant
category. As part of his application, the applicant submitted material regarding
his assets in order to prove that he legally obtained a net worth of at least
$800,000 in accordance with the Regulations. This material included:
1.
a notarized “CHENGBAO” contract (sub-contract
agreement) signed between the applicant and Guang Dong You He Trade with Taiwan
Trading Company (the Trading Company);
2.
a translated copy of the 1996 purchase agreement
for the sale of property located at 10th Street Clifford Estate (the
Property);
3.
a receipt confirming the method, manner and
amount of payment for the Property;
4.
the applicant’s sworn statement regarding the
source of his funds;
5.
submissions on behalf of the applicant dated
March 30, 2005;
6.
various business contracts entered into by the
applicant on behalf of the Trading Company;
7.
notarized corporate tax receipts;
8.
a tax certificate confirming the Trading
Company’s payments to the local tax bureau for the period from March 1996 to
December 2002;
9.
bank statements for the Trading Company issued
by the Bank of China for the period from 1999 to 2002;
10.
an audit report prepared for the Trading Company
for the period from 1996 to 2002;
11.
a chart of the Trading Company’s profits and losses
for the period from 1996 to 2002; and
12.
the Trading Company’s balance sheets for the
period from 1996 to 2002.
[4]
The applicant attended an interview with a visa
officer from the Hong Kong Immigration Section of the Canadian Consulate
General on November 17, 2005. By letter dated the next day, the visa officer
refused the applicant’s application for permanent residence. The letter stated
in part:
Subsections 34 to 42 of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act 2001 prescribe inadmissible classes of persons to Canada. In order for your application to
succeed, you must satisfy me that you meet all the requirements of IRPA and the
regulations, including a determination that you are not a member of an
inadmissible class of persons described in subsections 34 to 42. Your
failure to adequately account for the origins of your net worth makes it
impossible for me to complete a comprehensive and proper assessment of
admissibility in your case.
Subsection 16(1) of the Act requires
that a person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put
to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce all relevant
evidence and documents that the officer reasonable requires. You do not meet
these requirements because you have not complied with my requests for evidence
to satisfy me that your personal net worth was derived from legal and
legitimate sources.
Subsection 11(1) of the Act provides that a
foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or any other document required by
the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following an
examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not
inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.
Based on the information that is available, I
am not satisfied that you are not inadmissible and that you meet the
requirements of the Act for the reasons explained above. I am therefore not
authorized to issue you a permanent reside visa. Your application is therefore
refused.
[Emphasis
added]
[5]
The visa officer’s concerns about the legality
of the source of the applicant’s funds are identified throughout the Computer
Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes:
1.
The visa officer questioned the source of the
applicant’s funds with which he purchased the Property in 1996. The visa
officer observed that the purchase price was RMB 509,652 and that the applicant
earned RMB 421,400 from 1984 to 1996.
2.
According to the chengbao sub-contract agreement
between the applicant and the Trading Company, the applicant bore
responsibility for providing a revolving fund. The visa officer opined that the
applicant could not have operated the chengbao without start-up funds.
3.
The applicant previously stated to the Bureau
d’immigration du Québec that the revolving fund for the chengbao came from the
applicant’s own savings and from credit extended to him by a Hong Kong
supplier.
4.
It was not feasible for the applicant to make a
substantial payment towards the purchase price of the Property while operating
a chengbao which required start-up funds.
5.
The purchase contracts submitted by the
applicant did not contain accurate telephone numbers and listings for the
contracting companies. In fact, three of these contracts were found by the
respondent to be fraudulent.
Issues
[6]
This application for judicial review raises the
following issues:
1.
Did the visa officer breach the duty of fairness
by denying the applicant an opportunity to know and respond to the case against
him?
2.
Did the visa officer lack jurisdiction to refuse
the applicant’s application in light of the fact that he had been selected as
an investor in the business category by the Province of
Québec and had not been found
inadmissible?
3.
Did the visa officer make patently unreasonable
findings of fact in refusing the applicant’s application?
Standard of Review
[7]
The case law is divided as to the
appropriate standard of review applicable to visa officers’ decisions. In some
cases, the Court has determined that patent unreasonableness is the appropriate
standard: see, e.g., Ushenin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2003 FCT 315; Shi
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1224; Hua v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1647. In
others, the Court has applied a standard of reasonableness: see, e.g., Shehada
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 11; Shabashkevich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 361; Liu v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 751.
[8]
It is necessary to undertake the pragmatic and functional analysis of
the appropriate standard of review: Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and
Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226. As stated by Linden J.A.
in Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404:
¶ 46 …[T]he pragmatic and functional analysis
must be undertaken anew by the reviewing Court with respect to each decision of
an administrative decision-maker, not merely each general type of decision of a
particular decision-maker under a particular provision.
[9]
Having regard to the absence of a privative
clause or absolute right of appeal, the availability of judicial review upon
leave of the Court, a visa officer’s relative expertise in assessing
applications for permanent residence visas, the polycentric context within
which decisions are made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c.27, and the nature of the decision under review as a question of
mixed fact and law, I conclude that the visa officer’s decision on questions of
fact is appropriately reviewed on a standard of patent unreasonableness.
[10]
With respect to the issue of procedural
fairness, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that questions of procedural
fairness or natural justice are subject to the correctness standard: Ellis-Don
Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221 at paragraph
65. If a breach of the duty of fairness is found, the decision must be set
aside: see, e.g., Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de
St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650 at 665.
Questions of law like jurisdiction are also reviewed on a standard of
correctness.
Relevant Legislation
[11]
The following legislation and inter-provincial
agreements govern this application:
1.
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), the relevant excerpts of which are set out in Appendix
“A” to these Reasons;
2.
An Act Respecting Immigration to
Québec, R.S.Q., c. I-0.2,
and the Regulation respecting the selection
of foreign nationals, c. I-0.2, r.5, which
provide for the issuance of selection certificates to
qualified immigrants wishing to settle in the Province of Québec. The relevant
excerpts of this legislation are set out in Appendix “B” to these Reasons; and
3.
the Canada-Québec Accord Relating to
Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens, dated February 5, 1991,
which assigns responsibility for the selection of qualified immigrants to
Québec. The relevant excerpts of this agreement are set out in Appendix “C” to
these Reasons.
Analysis
Issue No. 1: Did the visa officer
breach the duty of fairness by denying the applicant an opportunity to know and
respond to the case against him?
[12]
The Hong Kong Immigration Section of the
respondent conducted an investigation of the applicant’s Hong Kong clients to
confirm their business relationship with the applicant. The verification was
specifically with respect to six contracts which the applicant had submitted to
verify his business, source of funds and capital. The verification result was that
three of the six contracts were flagged with a “FRAUD” warning. This
verification report was completed on July 7, 2005.
[13]
On cross-examination, the visa officer admitted
that the fraud reports were not disclosed to the applicant prior to the
interview on November 17, 2005, which was the day before the visa officer’s
decision. Moreover, it is clear that not all the fraud reports were discussed
at the interview, the applicant was never shown the reports, and the applicant
was not given even one day to respond to the verbal rendition by the visa
officer of the “verification results” indicating “fraud”.
[14]
The duty to act fairly requires the visa officer
to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond to any central concern,
inconsistency or extrinsic evidence with respect to the application: see Toma
v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC
779, per Pinard J. at paragraph 15. The applicant was not given the opportunity
to know that the verification result showed that three of six contracts investigated
were found to be coloured with “FRAUD”. The manner in which the visa officer
raised this issue at the interview did not provide the applicant with a proper
opportunity to know the case against him with respect to important extrinsic
evidence against his application, or a proper opportunity to respond.
[15]
In Shi, above, Justice Snider considered
a similar fact scenario at paragraphs 20 and 21 where the respondent sent a
“fairness letter” to a Chinese applicant for immigration to Canada as an Investor in the Business
Category selected by the Province of Québec:
¶
20 In a fairness letter dated October 5, 2004, the visa officer advised Mr.
Shi of the fraudulent certificate and allowed him 30 days to respond. The
relevant portion of that letter reads as follows:
Following
a review of your application for permanent residence in Canada, our office made telephone inquiries
to verify tax documentation provided in support of your application. The
verification uncovered serious discrepancies in the information submitted with
your application and these call into question the authenticity of your
accumulation of your personal net wealth.
Specifically,
our office discovered that the tax document purported to be issued by the
Shenyang Local Tax Bureau Helping Branch is fraudulent …
The
result of the verification suggests that you have submitted a false document.
Misrepresentation such as this may result in the refusal of your application.
¶
21 In response to this letter, Mr. Shi denied that the certificate was not
genuine and produced photo copies of tax receipts which, when added,
corresponded to the 2000 total tax paid on the certificate in question.
[16]
In the case at bar, the visa officer did not
send Mr. Chen any “fairness letter” giving him knowledge of the findings of
fraud against him, or a proper opportunity to respond. This is an obvious
breach of the duty of fairness owed to the applicant, and warrants the intervention
of the Court on this basis alone. For this reason, the Court will:
1.
allow this application;
2.
set aside the decision of the visa officer;
3.
expect Mr. Chen to respond to the results of the
fraud verification report by sending the Hong Kong visa office more information
to prove the legitimacy of those contracts and to better explain the legitimacy
of his source of funds; and
4.
expect a different visa officer to then
redetermine the application for a visa in a reasonably expeditious manner having
regard to the delays experienced on this file.
[17]
Accordingly, the Court does not need to consider
the other two issues raised by the applicant. However, in obiter, I will
briefly express my opinion on these other two issues for the benefit of the
parties.
Issue No. 2: Did the visa officer
lack jurisdiction to refuse the applicant’s application in light of the fact
that he had been selected as an investor in the business category by the Province of Québec and had not been found
inadmissible?
[18]
Paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Act provides that the
applicant shall be granted permanent resident status because he met the Québec
selection criteria as an investor immigration unless found inadmissible. The
visa officer did not find the applicant inadmissible; rather, the visa officer
said he could not be “satisfied that the applicant is not inadmissible”. This
is not a finding that the applicant is inadmissible. If the visa officer
concluded that Mr. Chen was not truthfully answering questions about his source
of funds as required under section 16 of the Act, the visa officer could have
found Mr. Chen inadmissible under sections 40 or 41 of the Act. He did not do
so, and did not have the jurisdiction to deny a permanent resident visa to Mr.
Chen under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Act.
Issue No. 3: Did the visa officer
make patently unreasonable findings of fact in refusing the applicant’s
application?
[19]
The visa officer clearly misunderstood the
evidence before the Québec immigration officer and erroneously found that there
was a contradiction in Mr. Chen’s evidence about his initial working capital.
Since the visa officer relied upon this misunderstanding to find that Mr. Chen
could not have had the working capital in 1996 required under the chengbao contract
or the capital to buy a house in 1996, this misunderstanding resulted in a
patently unreasonable finding of fact.
Costs
[20]
At the hearing, the applicant sought for the
first time legal costs under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration and
Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22.
[21]
The Rule for immigration judicial review
applications is that no costs shall be awarded to or against any party unless
the court so orders for “special reasons”. In this case, the respondent has
acted in good faith without any undue delay. The applicant knew the legitimacy
of his funds (C$800,000) was an important issue. The applicant should have
presented his source of funds in a manner which clearly shows they are
legitimate. The applicant did not do so, and now, as a result of his Federal
Court case, he has a second chance. However, I do not think the respondent’s
conduct in this case constitutes special reasons for awarding costs.
Certified
Question
[22]
The Court is satisfied that this case does not
raise a serious issue of general importance which ought to be certified with
respect to procedural fairness. The determinative issue concerning procedural
fairness is obvious and not of general importance. The other two issues, being obiter,
are not determinative.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS
AND ADJUDGES that:
1. The
application for judicial review is allowed;
2. The visa
officer’s decision dated November 18, 2005 refusing the applicant’s application
for permanent residence is set aside and remitted for reconsideration by a
different visa officer after the applicant has submitted additional information
to respond to the results of the fraud verification and any other information
which the applicant wishes to submit to verify the legitimacy of his funds
(i.e. C$800,000).
“Michael
A. Kelen”
Appendix “A”
The Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
|
Federal-provincial
agreements
8. (1) The Minister,
with the approval of the Governor in Council, may enter into an agreement
with the government of any province for the purposes of this Act. The
Minister must publish, once a year, a list of the federal-provincial
agreements that are in force.
Consistency with agreement
(2) Subject to
subsection (3) but despite the other provisions of this Act, the following
must be consistent with the federal-provincial agreements:
(a) the
selection and sponsorship of, and the acquisition of status by, foreign
nationals under this Act; and
(b)
regulations governing those matters, including regulations respecting the
examination in Canada of applications to become a permanent resident, or
respecting the foreign nationals who may be selected on the basis of an
investment in Canada.
Inadmissibility not limited
(3) Subsection (2)
is not to be interpreted as limiting the application of any provision of this
Act concerning inadmissibility to Canada.
Sole provincial
responsibility — permanent residents
9. (1) Where a
province has, under a federal-provincial agreement, sole responsibility for
the selection of a foreign national who intends to reside in that province as
a permanent resident, the following provisions apply to that foreign
national, unless the agreement provides otherwise:
(a) the
foreign national, unless inadmissible under this Act, shall be granted
permanent resident status if the foreign national meets the province’s
selection criteria;
(b) the
foreign national shall not be granted permanent resident status if the foreign
national does not meet the province’s selection criteria;
(c) the
foreign national shall not be granted permanent resident status contrary to
the provisions of the law of the province governing the number of foreign
nationals who may settle in the province as permanent residents, whether that
number is an estimate or a maximum, or governing the distribution of that
number among classes of foreign nationals; and
(d)
conditions imposed in accordance with the law of the province have the same
force and effect as if they were made under this Act, if they are imposed on
a foreign national on or before the grant of permanent resident status.
[…]
Application before entering Canada
11. (1) A foreign
national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for
any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document shall be
issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the
foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.
If sponsor does not meet requirements
(2) The officer may
not issue a visa or other document to a foreign national whose sponsor does
not meet the sponsorship requirements of this Act.
[…]
Obligation — answer truthfully
16. (1) A person who
makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the
purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence
and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
Obligation — relevant evidence
(2) In the case of a foreign national,
(a) the relevant evidence referred to in subsection (1) includes
photographic and fingerprint evidence; and
(b) the foreign national must submit to a medical examination on
request.
Evidence relating to identity
(3) An officer may require or obtain from a permanent resident or a
foreign national who is arrested, detained or subject to a removal order, any
evidence — photographic, fingerprint or otherwise — that may be used to
establish their identity or compliance with this Act.
[…]
Rules of interpretation
33. The facts that
constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from
omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are
reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may
occur.
[…]
Criminality
36. […]
(2) A foreign
national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
(a) having
been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by
way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising
out of a single occurrence;
(b) having
been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute
an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not
arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute
offences under an Act of Parliament;
(c)
committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was
committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of
Parliament; or
(d)
committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by
regulations.
[…]
Misrepresentation
40. (1) A permanent
resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
(a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material
facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in
the administration of this Act;
(b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to
be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
(c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow the claim for
refugee protection by the permanent resident or the foreign national; or
(d) on ceasing to be a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship
Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of that Act.
Application
(2) The following provisions govern subsection (1):
(a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be
inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of two years following, in
the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of
inadmissibility under subsection (1) or, in the case of a determination in
Canada, the date the removal order is enforced; and
(b) paragraph (1)(b) does not apply unless the Minister is satisfied
that the facts of the case justify the inadmissibility.
Non-compliance with Act
41. A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this
Act
(a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which
contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act; and
(b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with
subsection 27(2) or section 28.
|
Accords
fédéro-provinciaux
8. (1) Pour
l’application de la présente loi, le ministre peut, avec l’agrément du
gouverneur en conseil, conclure un accord avec une province; il publie chaque
année la liste des accords en vigueur.
Conformité
(2)
Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, doivent être conformes à
l’accord :
a) la
sélection et le parrainage des étrangers, ainsi que l’acquisition d’un
statut, sous le régime de la présente loi;
b) les
règlements régissant ces matières, et notamment tout règlement concernant
l’examen au Canada de certaines demandes pour devenir résident permanent ou
concernant des étrangers dont la sélection est faite sur la base de
placements au Canada.
Précision : interdictions de territoire
(3) Le
paragraphe (2) n’a toutefois pas pour effet de limiter l’application des
dispositions de la présente loi visant les interdictions de territoire.
Responsabilité
provinciale exclusive : résidents permanents
9. (1)
Lorsqu’une province a, sous le régime d’un accord, la responsabilité
exclusive de sélection de l’étranger qui cherche à s’y établir comme résident
permanent, les règles suivantes s’appliquent à celui-ci sauf stipulation
contraire de l’accord :
a) le
statut de résident permanent est octroyé à l’étranger qui répond aux critères
de sélection de la province et n’est pas interdit de territoire;
b) le
statut de résident permanent ne peut être octroyé à l’étranger qui ne répond
pas aux critères de sélection de la province;
c) le
statut de résident permanent ne peut être octroyé contrairement aux
dispositions de la législation de la province régissant le nombre — qu’il
s’agisse d’estimations ou de plafonds — des étrangers qui peuvent s’y établir
comme résidents permanents, ainsi que leur répartition par catégorie;
d) les
conditions imposées à l’étranger, avant ou à l’octroi du statut de résident
permanent, en vertu de la législation de la province ont le même effet que
celles prévues sous le régime de la présente loi.
Visa et documents
11. (1)
L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les
visa et autres documents requis par règlement, lesquels sont délivrés sur
preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, qu’il n’est pas interdit de territoire et
se conforme à la présente loi.
Cas de la demande parrainée
(2) Ils
ne peuvent être délivrés à l’étranger dont le répondant ne se conforme pas
aux exigences applicables au parrainage.
[…]
Interprétation
33. Les
faits — actes ou omissions — mentionnés aux articles 34 à 37 sont, sauf
disposition contraire, appréciés sur la base de motifs raisonnables de croire
qu’ils sont survenus, surviennent ou peuvent survenir.
[…]
Obligation du demandeur
16. (1) L’auteur d’une demande au titre de la présente loi
doit répondre véridiquement aux questions qui lui sont posées lors du
contrôle, donner les renseignements et tous éléments de preuve pertinents et
présenter les visa et documents requis.
Éléments de preuve
(2) S’agissant de l’étranger, les éléments de preuve
pertinents visent notamment la photographie et la dactyloscopie et il est
tenu de se soumettre, sur demande, à une visite médicale.
Établissement de l’identité
(3) L’agent peut exiger ou obtenir du résident permanent
ou de l’étranger qui fait l’objet d’une arrestation, d’une mise en détention,
d’un contrôle ou d’une mesure de renvoi tous éléments, dont la photographie
et la dactyloscopie, en vue d’établir son identité et vérifier s’il se
conforme à la présente loi.
[…]
Criminalité
36. […]
(2)
Emportent, sauf pour le résident permanent, interdiction de territoire pour
criminalité les faits suivants :
a) être
déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par
mise en accusation ou de deux infractions à toute loi fédérale qui ne
découlent pas des mêmes faits;
b) être
déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au
Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise
en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et
qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions à des lois
fédérales;
c)
commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada,
constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en
accusation;
d)
commettre, à son entrée au Canada, une infraction qui constitue une
infraction à une loi fédérale précisée par règlement.
[…]
Fausses déclarations
40. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour fausses
déclarations les faits suivants :
a) directement ou indirectement, faire une présentation
erronée sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou une réticence
sur ce fait, ce qui entraîne ou risque d’entraîner une erreur dans
l’application de la présente loi;
b) être ou avoir été parrainé par un répondant dont il a
été statué qu’il est interdit de territoire pour fausses déclarations;
c) l’annulation en dernier ressort de la décision ayant
accueilli la demande d’asile;
d) la perte de la citoyenneté au titre de l’alinéa
10(1)a) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté dans le cas visé au paragraphe
10(2) de cette loi.
Application
(2) Les dispositions suivantes s’appliquent au paragraphe
(1) :
a) l’interdiction de territoire court pour les deux ans
suivant la décision la constatant en dernier ressort, si le résident
permanent ou l’étranger n’est pas au pays, ou suivant l’exécution de la
mesure de renvoi;
b) l’alinéa (1)b) ne s’applique que si le ministre est
convaincu que les faits en cause justifient l’interdiction.
Manquement à la loi
41. S’agissant de l’étranger, emportent interdiction de
territoire pour manquement à la présente loi tout fait — acte ou omission —
commis directement ou indirectement en contravention avec la présente loi et,
s’agissant du résident permanent, le manquement à l’obligation de résidence
et aux conditions imposées.
|
Appendix “B”
1. An
Act respecting immigration to Québec, R.S.Q.,
c. I-0.2 [as of March 29, 2004]
|
Application for permanent residence.
3.1. A foreign national wishing to settle permanently in Québec
must, except for the classes and in the cases prescribed by regulation, file
an application for a selection certificate with the Minister of Relations
with the Citizens and Immigration in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under paragraph f of section 3.3.
Process.
The Minister shall process the application, having regard to the annual
immigration plan and to the order of priorities prescribed by regulation.
Selection certificate.
The Minister shall issue a selection certificate to the foreign national
who meets the conditions and criteria of selection determined by regulation.
Suspension of examination.
The Minister shall suspend the examination of applications or cease to
issue selection certificates for or within a class until the beginning of the
following calendar year if the maximum set out in the annual plan has been
reached. The Minister may, for or within a class, suspend the examination of
applications or cease to issue selection certificates until the beginning of
the following calendar year if the Minister considers that the maximum number
or estimate set out in the annual plan will be reached.
Selection certificate.
Notwithstanding the third or fourth paragraph, the Minister may, in
accordance with the regulations, issue a selection certificate to a foreign
national in a particularly distressful situation, in particular, in the case
of Convention refugees as defined in the Immigration Act (Revised Statutes of
Canada, 1985, chapter I-2), or in any other case where the Minister considers
that the results obtained following the application of the selection criteria
do not reflect whether or not the foreign national will be able to become
successfully established in Québec. Conversely, the Minister may refuse to
issue such a certificate to a foreign national who meets the conditions and
criteria of selection if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the
foreign national does not intend to settle in Québec or is unlikely to settle
successfully in Québec or that the settlement of the foreign national would
be contrary to public interest.
|
Ressortissant étranger permanent.
3.1. Un ressortissant étranger désirant s'établir à
titre permanent au Québec doit, sauf pour les catégories ou dans les cas
prévus par règlement, présenter une demande de certificat de sélection au
ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration conformément à
la procédure visée au paragraphe f de l'article 3.3.
Demande examinée.
Le ministre examine la demande en tenant compte du plan
annuel d'immigration et de l'ordre des priorités fixé par règlement.
Certificat de sélection.
Le ministre délivre un certificat de sélection au
ressortissant étranger qui satisfait aux conditions et critères de sélection
déterminés par règlement.
Atteinte du maximum.
Le ministre suspend l'examen des demandes ou cesse de
délivrer des certificats de sélection pour une catégorie ou à l'intérieur
d'une même catégorie jusqu'au début de l'année civile suivante, si le maximum
prévu au plan annuel est atteint. Il peut, pour une catégorie ou à
l'intérieur d'une même catégorie, suspendre l'examen des demandes ou cesser
la délivrance des certificats de sélection jusqu'au début de l'année civile
suivante, s'il est d'avis que le maximum ou l'estimation prévu au plan annuel
sera atteint.
Certificat de sélection.
Malgré le troisième ou le quatrième alinéa, le ministre
peut, conformément au règlement, délivrer un certificat de sélection à un
ressortissant étranger qui est dans une situation particulière de détresse,
notamment dans le cas de réfugiés au sens de la Convention, tels que définis
dans la Loi sur l'immigration (Lois révisées du Canada (1985), chapitre I-2),
ou dans tout autre cas où le ministre juge que le résultat obtenu, à la suite
de l'application des critères de sélection, ne reflète pas les possibilités
de ce ressortissant étranger de s'établir avec succès au Québec. À l'inverse,
le ministre peut refuser de délivrer un tel certificat à celui qui satisfait
aux conditions et critères de sélection s'il a des motifs raisonnables de
croire que le ressortissant étranger n'a pas l'intention de s'établir au
Québec, n'a que peu de possibilités de s'y établir avec succès ou dont
l'établissement irait à l'encontre de l'intérêt public.
|
2. Regulation respecting the selection of foreign
nationals, c.
I-0.2, r.5 [as of March 29, 2004]
|
2. Procedure for obtaining a selection and
acceptance certificate
2. The application for a selection certificate referred to
in section 3.1 of the Act is filed with the Minister by a foreign national
for himself and for his family members whether or not they accompany him ;
the application for a certificate of acceptance referred to in section 3.2 of
the Act is filed with the Minister by a foreign national for himself and for
his accompanying family members.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the application for a selection
certificate filed in Québec in a class referred to in sections 110 to 115 of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations or in sections 25 and 97
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act may not consider the foreign
national's family members who are not in Canada, except if they are already
covered by an undertaking subscribed to under section 23.
It may also be made in their name by a person having the right to act on
their behalf when the foreign national does not have the legal capacity to do
so. Furthermore, in the case of a foreign national belonging to the class of
independent immigrants, the application for a selection certificate is filed
by the said foreign national, or if he so wishes, by his spouse or de facto
spouse.
3. Any foreign national wishing to settle permanently in
Québec must hold a selection certificate issued by the Minister under section
3.1 of the Act.
The application shall be made on the form provided by the Minister.
[…]
6. The Minister decides to which class the foreign national
applying for a selection certificate belongs.
[…]
8. Any foreign national belonging to the investors class
shall be called for an interview, as well as any national in the class of
persons in distress, excluding nationals referred to in paragraph a of
section 18 and, if a meeting is not possible while their records contain the
information necessary for making a decision, nationals referred to in
paragraphs b and c of that section.
Nationals referred to in section 7 shall be called for an interview if
they meet the requirements of the preliminary processing but fail to achieve
the passing or cutoff scores, or whose application contains declarations the
truthfulness of which is not demonstrated.
The notice of interview shall indicate the place and date of the
interview and the documents that the national must submit in support of his
application.
9. The
foreign national who makes an application for a selection certificate or
certificate of acceptance must answer the questions of an immigration officer
and produce the documents that the said officer demands for the purposes of
determining whether he meets the requirements of this Regulation.
10. The
sponsor must answer the questions of an immigration officer and produce the
documents that the said officer demands for the purposes of determining
whether he meets the requirements of this Regulation.
11. The
foreign national or the sponsor must provide evidence of each fact submitted
in support of his application for a selection certificate or certificate of
acceptance or his application for an undertaking.
[…]
15. The foreign national is advised of the acceptance or the
rejection of his application for a selection or acceptance certificate within
a period of 60 days after the decision.
The selection certificate issued following the acceptance of the
application is valid for 3 years from the date of its issue. Where a new selection
certificate is issued immediately following the expiry of the previous
selection certificate, it is valid for 12 months, if the conditions in effect
at the time of the issue of the previous selection certificate continue to be
met.
The certificate of acceptance of a foreign national coming to Québec to
study is valid from the beginning of his studies for a period equal to the
duration of the program or of the level of study referred to in section 47.
The certificate is valid for a period of not more than 36 months.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a minor child, the period of
validity of his certificate is the same as that of the certificate of
acceptance or the work permit issued by the Canadian authorities to his
father, mother or another person holding parental authority whom he
accompanies, or, failing that, is 14 months.
The certificate of acceptance of a foreign national coming to Québec to
work is valid from the beginning of his period of work for a period equal to
the duration of an offer of employment that satisfies subsections 1 and 3 of
section 50. The certificate is issued for a duration of not more than 36
months. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a foreign national who
has an offer of employment in an occupation where the level of qualification
for such an occupation within the meaning of the National Occupational
Classification is less than «B», the period of validity of his certificate is
not more than, 14 months.
The certificate of acceptance issued to a foreign national coming to
Québec to receive medical treatment is valid from the beginning of his
medical treatment for the expected duration of the treatment.
A selection certificate or a certificate of acceptance is valid until a
foreign national is authorized to be present in Canada or to enter Canada
under a temporary resident permit referred to in section 24 of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, even if the foreign national is
inadmissible under the Act.
[…]
§ 3. Classes of foreign nationals wishing
to settle permanently in Québec
17. For the purposes of an application for a selection
certificate, the foreign national who wishes to settle permanently in Québec
belongs to one of the 3 following classes:
(a) class of
foreign nationals who are in a particularly distressful situation;
(b) family class;
or
(c) class of
independent immigrants.
[…]
21. The
class of independent immigrants includes a foreign national at least 18 years
of age who: […]
(d) is designated as an «investor» if:
(i) he has at least 3 years of
experience in management:
- in a farming, commercial or industrial business
that is profitable and legal;
- for a government or one of its departments or
agencies;
- for an international agency;
(ii) he has net assets of at least
800 000 $ that he has accumulated through legal economic activities;
(iii) he comes to settle and to
invest in Québec in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation;
[…]
38. The Minister shall issue a selection certificate to a
foreign national belonging to the class of independent immigrants if the
foreign national is awarded, in the awarding of the points prescribed in the
Regulation respecting weighting for his class in respect of the factors and
criteria of the Selection Grid for Independent Immigrants in Schedule A, the
number of points required as a cutoff score, where applicable, and as a
passing score.
Furthermore, an investor shall also file with the Minister a document
proving that the amount mentioned in the investment agreement has been
transferred to his broker or his trust company in Québec.
|
§ 2. Procédure d'obtention
d'un certificat de sélection et d'acceptation
2. La demande de certificat de sélection
visée à l'article 3.1 de la Loi est présentée au ministre par un
ressortissant étranger pour lui-même et pour les membres de sa famille qui
l'accompagnent ou non ; la demande de certificat d'acceptation visée à
l'article 3.2 de la Loi est présentée au ministre par un ressortissant
étranger pour lui-même et les membres de sa famille qui l'accompagnent.
Cependant la demande de certificat de sélection présentée
au Québec dans une catégorie visée aux articles 110 à 115 du Règlement sur
l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés ou aux articles 25 et 97 de la
Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés ne peut viser les membres
de sa famille qui ne sont pas au Canada, sauf s'ils sont déjà visés par un
engagement souscrit en vertu de l'article 23.
Elle peut aussi être faite en leur nom par une personne
ayant le droit d'agir pour eux lorsque le ressortissant étranger n'a pas la
capacité légale. De plus, dans le cas d'un ressortissant étranger appartenant
à la catégorie des immigrants indépendants, la demande de certificat de sélection
est présentée par ce ressortissant étranger, ou à son choix, par son époux ou
conjoint de fait.
3. Tout ressortissant étranger désirant
s'établir à titre permanent au Québec doit être détenteur d'un certificat de
sélection délivré par le ministre en vertu de l'article 3.1 de la Loi.
La demande est présentée sur le formulaire fourni par le
ministre.
[…]
6. Le ministre détermine à quelle catégorie
de ressortissants étrangers appartient celui qui demande un certificat de
sélection.
[…]
8. Tout ressortissant étranger de la
catégorie des investisseurs est convoqué en entrevue, ainsi que tout
ressortissant de la catégorie des personnes en situation de détresse, à
l'exception du ressortissant visé au paragraphe a de l'article 18 et, dans le
cas où le ressortissant ne peut être rencontré alors que son dossier contient
les renseignements nécessaires à la prise de décision, du ressortissant visé
aux paragraphes b et c de cet article .
Quant au ressortissant visé à l'article 7, est convoqué
en entrevue celui qui, tout en satisfaisant aux exigences de l'examen
préliminaire, n'atteint pas les seuils de passage de sélection ou
éliminatoires, ou dont la demande contient des déclarations dont la véracité
n'est pas démontrée.
L'avis de convocation indique le lieu et la date de
l'entrevue ainsi que les documents que le ressortissant doit présenter à
l'appui de sa demande.
9. Le ressortissant étranger qui présente une demande de
certificat de sélection ou de certificat d'acceptation doit répondre aux questions
d'un fonctionnaire à l'immigration et produire les documents que ce
fonctionnaire réclame aux fins d'établir qu'il répond aux exigences du
présent règlement.
10. Le garant doit répondre aux questions d'un
fonctionnaire à l'immigration et produire les documents que ce fonctionnaire
réclame aux fins d'établir qu'il répond aux exigences du présent règlement.
11. Le ressortissant étranger, ou le garant,
doit fournir la preuve de tout fait à l'appui de sa demande de certificat de
sélection, de certificat d'acceptation ou de sa demande d'engagement.
[…]
15. Le ressortissant étranger est avisé de
l'acceptation ou du refus de sa demande de certificat de sélection ou
d'acceptation dans un délai de 60 jours à compter de cette décision.
Le certificat de sélection délivré à la suite de
l'acceptation de la demande est valide, à compter de la date de sa
délivrance, pour une durée de 3 ans. À l'expiration de la durée de validité
d'un certificat de sélection, un nouveau certificat peut être délivré pour une
durée de 12 mois si les conditions ayant prévalu lors de sa délivrance sont
toujours respectées.
Le certificat d'acceptation du ressortissant étranger qui
vient étudier au Québec est valide, à compter du début des études, pour une
durée équivalente à la durée du programme ou à celle du niveau d'études visé
à l'article 47. Ce certificat est délivré pour une durée d'au plus 36 mois.
Toutefois, dans le cas de l'enfant mineur, la durée de son certificat est la
même que celle du certificat d'acceptation ou du permis de travail délivré
par les autorités canadiennes de son père, de sa mère ou d'une autre personne
titulaire de l'autorité parentale qu'il accompagne ou, à défaut, de 14 mois.
Le certificat d'acceptation du ressortissant étranger qui
vient travailler au Québec est valide, à compter du début de la période de
travail, pour une durée équivalente à celle de l'offre d'emploi qui satisfait
aux paragraphes 1 et 3 de l'article 50. Ce certificat est délivré pour une
durée d'au plus 36 mois. Toutefois, dans le cas d'un ressortissant étranger
qui a une offre d'emploi dans une profession où le niveau de compétence, au
sens de la Classification nationale des professions, est inférieur à «B», la
durée de son certificat est d'au plus 14 mois.
Le certificat d'acceptation délivré au ressortissant
étranger qui vient recevoir au Québec un traitement médical est valide, à
compter du début du traitement médical, pour la durée prévue de ce
traitement.
Un certificat de sélection ou un certificat d'acceptation
est valide tant que le ressortissant étranger est autorisé à être présent au
Canada ou à y entrer en vertu d'un permis de séjour temporaire visé à
l'article 24 de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, même
s'il est interdit de territoire en vertu de cette loi.
[…]
§ 3. Catégories de
ressortissants étrangers désirant s'établir à titre permanent au Québec
17. Aux fins d'une demande de certificat de
sélection, le ressortissant étranger qui désire s'établir à titre permanent
au Québec appartient à l'une des 3 catégories suivantes:
a) catégorie
des ressortissants étrangers qui sont dans une situation particulière de
détresse;
b) catégorie
du regroupement familial ;
c) catégorie
des immigrants indépendants.
[…]
21. La catégorie des immigrants indépendants
comprend un ressortissant étranger âgé d'au moins 18 ans: […]
d) qui est désigné
«investisseur» s'il:
i. a une expérience en
gestion d'au moins 3 ans:
- dans une entreprise agricole,
commerciale ou industrielle, rentable et licite;
- pour un gouvernement, l'un de
ses ministères ou organismes;
- pour un organisme international;
ii. dispose d'un avoir
net d'au moins 800 000 $ qu'il a accumulé par des activités économiques
licites;
iii. vient s'établir
au Québec et y investir conformément aux dispositions du présent règlement;
[…]
38. Le ministre délivre un certificat de
sélection à un ressortissant étranger de la catégorie des immigrants
indépendants si celui-ci obtient, lors de l'attribution des points prévus au
Règlement sur la pondération pour sa sous-catégorie en regard des facteurs et
critères de la Grille de sélection des immigrants indépendants prévue à
l'Annexe A, le nombre de points requis comme seuil éliminatoire, le cas
échéant, et comme seuil de passage.
En outre, l'investisseur doit aussi déposer auprès du
ministre un document attestant le transfert auprès de son courtier ou de sa
société de fiducie au Québec du montant mentionné dans la convention
d'investissement.
|
Appendix “C”
Canada - Québec Accord Relating to Immigration and
Temporary Admission of Aliens
February 5, 1991
|
Immigrants
12. Subject to sections 13 to 20,
a. Québec has sole responsibility for the
selection of immigrants destined to that province and Canada has sole responsibility for the
admission of immigrants to that province.
b. Canada shall admit any immigrant destined
to Québec who meets Québec’s selection criteria, if the immigrant is not in
an inadmissible class under the law of Canada.
c. Canada shall not admit any immigrant into
Québec who does not meet Québec’s selection criteria.
|
Les immigrants
12. Sous réserve des articles 13 à 20 :
a. Le Québec est seul responsable de la
sélection des immigrants à destination de cette province et le Canada est
seul responsable de l'admission des immigrants dans cette province.
b. Le Canada doit admettre tout immigrant à
destination du Québec qui satisfait aux critères de sélection du Québec, si
cet immigrant n'appartient pas à une catégorie inadmissible selon la loi
fédérale.
c. Le Canada n'admet pas au Québec un
immigrant qui ne satisfait pas aux critères de sélection du Québec.
|
Email this Content