Date: 20010228
Docket: A-752-99
Montréal, Quebec, Wednesday, February 28, 2001
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
GUO YONG BIAO
Appellant
AND
MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
O R D E R
IN VIEW OF the absence of reasons explaining why counsel for the appellant, Jean-François Harvey, who is responsible for the case, is held up outside the country, unless by his personal choice;
WHEREAS the motion to adjourn was not made until the very morning of the hearing, without prior notice, though the reason given was known well in advance;
WHEREAS the motion as made is an abuse of process;
WHEREAS counsel representing the appellant in this Court this morning is prepared to rely on his written pleadings;
The motion to adjourn is dismissed.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010228
Docket: A-752-99
Montréal, Quebec, Wednesday, February 28, 2001
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
Between:
GUO YONG BIAO
Appellant
AND
MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed with costs and the following question, which was certified:
Does the Canada-Quebec Accord limit the jurisdiction of the visa officer to question the source of funds of a Quebec-destined applicant for permanent residence in Canada, in order to establish the applicant's admissibility?
is answered in the negative.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010228
Docket: A-752-99
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 43
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
GUO YONG BIAO
Appellant
AND
MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec
on Wednesday, February 28, 2001
Judgment rendered at Montréal, Quebec
on Wednesday, February 28, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
Date: 20010228
Docket: A-752-99
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 43
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
Between:
GUO YONG BIAO
Appellant
AND
MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] We consider that this appeal should be dismissed with costs and that this question certified by the motions judge should be answered in the negative:
Does the Canada-Quebec Accord limit the jurisdiction of the visa officer to question the source of funds of a Quebec-destined applicant for permanent residence in Canada, in order to establish the applicant's admissibility?
It seems clear to the Court that there is no incompatibility in the powers and duties of the two signatories of the Canada-Quebec Accord regarding immigration to Quebec. Clause 12 of that Accord states that the federal government has the authority to admit immigrants to Quebec and that it is the Government of Quebec which has the responsibility and powers of selecting immigrants wishing to settle in Quebec. Naturally the selection by the Quebec authorities is made and conducted from among the eligible immigrants. Clause 12(d) of the Accord expressly recognizes this, as follows:
| 12. Subject to sections 13 to 20:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Canada shall not admit any immigrant into Québec who does not meet Québec's selection criteria.
|
|
12. Sous réserve des articles 13 à 20:
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Le Canada n'admet pas au Québec un immigrant qui ne satisfait pas aux critères de sélection du Québec.
|
| |
|
|
[2] On the actual merits of the appeal, we feel that the motions judge made no error when he concluded that the visa officer was justified in denying the application for permanent residence in Canada made by the appellant on the ground that the latter had not provided the necessary documents establishing that his admission to Canada did not contravene the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, as amended, and the regulations made thereunder, as required in ss. 8 and 9 of the said Act.
| PART II - ADMISSION TO CANADA
8.(1) Burden of Proof - Where a person seeks to come into Canada, the burden of proving that that person has the right to come into Canada or that his admission would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations rests on that person.
9.(3) Duty to answer questions - Every person shall answer truthfully all questions put to that person by a visa officer and shall produce such documentation as may be required by the visa officer for the purpose of establishing that his admission would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations.
9.(4) Issuance of visa - Subject to subsection (5), where a visa officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations to grant landing or entry, as the case may be, to a person who has made an application pursuant to subsection (1) and to the person's dependants, the visa officer may issue a visa to that person and to each of that person's accompanying dependants for the purpose of identifying the holder thereof as an immigrant or a visitor, as the case may be, who, in the opinion of the visa officer, meets the requirements of this Act and the regulations.
|
|
PARTIE II - ADMISSION AU CANADA
8.(1) Charge de preuve - Il incombe à quiconque cherche à entrer au Canada de prouver qu'il en a le droit ou que le fait d'y être admis ne contreviendrait pas à la présente loi ni à ses règlements.
9.(3) Obligations - Toute personne doit répondre franchement aux questions de l'agent des visas et produire toutes les pièces qu'exige celui-ci pour établir que son admission ne contreviendrait pas à la présente loi ni à ses règlements.
9.(4) Délivrance de visas - Sous réserve du paragraphe (5), l'agent des visas qui est convaincu que l'établissement ou le séjour au Canada du demandeur et des personnes à sa charge ne contreviendrait pas à la présente loi ni à ses règlements peut délivrer à ce dernier et aux personnes à charge qui l'accompagnent un visa précisant leur qualité d'immigrant ou de visiteur et attestant qu'à son avis, ils satisfont aux exigences de la présente loi et de ses règlements.
|
| |
|
|
[3] The appeal will be dismissed with costs and the question certified will be answered in the negative.
I concur.
Alice Desjardins J.A.
I concur.
Marc Noël J.A.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: A-752-99
appeal from Trial Division judgment on February 5, 1999 in case IMM-843-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: GUO YONG BIAO
Appellant
AND
MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND
CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 28, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Létourneau J.A.
DATED: February 28, 2001
APPEARANCES::
Robert Crépin FOR THE APPELLANT
Marie-Claude Demers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kaufman, Laramée FOR THE APPELLANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20010228
Docket: A-752-99
Between:
GUO YONG BIAO
Appellant
AND
MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
|
Email this Content