Date: 19980708
Docket: IMM-367-98
BETWEEN:
ALI BAKHSHAEE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, July 8, 1998)
DÉCARY J.
[1] The applicant is a citizen of Iran. He submitted an application for permanent residence pursuant to the Entrepreneur Guidelines of the Immigration Act. He is the owner and managing director of a food export-import company in Iran.
[2] The applicant was found by a visa officer not to meet the requirements of the definition of "entrepreneur".
[3] As I understand the applicant's argument, the duty of fairness required the visa officer, once he had found that the applicant did not have the ability to establish a business in Canada within the definition of "entrepreneur", to go on and assess the applicant's ability to purchase or make a substantial investment in a business.
[4] This argument is based on a wrong premise. It is not fairness, but the Regulations that impose a duty on a visa officer to determine whether the conditions of the definition are met. Under part (a) of the definition, an applicant has the option of seeking admission as "entrepreneur" on the basis of his intention and ability "to establish, purchase or make a substantial investment in a business or commercial venture in Canada". An applicant may well decide to base his application and submit evidence with regard to only one of the three options, in which case a visa officer need not, of course, examine the other options. In the case at bar, the applicant limited himself to allegations and evidence pertaining to the establishment of a business. The visa officer cannot be faulted for not having examined the other options, with respect to which there was simply no evidence.
[5] The visa officer has explained that at the interview the applicant was vague with respect to his proposed business and its viability. The applicant did not know whether he would face competition, had no idea of current rents or salaries in Canada, had done no research into potential customers, would wait until he was admitted to Canada before investigating what the country needs and had done little, if any, research into the feasibility of establishing his proposed business.
[6] These factors, as noted by Simpson J. in Chin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1996) 121 F.T.C. 39, are very much relevant to the inquiry made by a visa officer. As my colleague writes at p. 41:
| |
the language of the definition makes it clear that potential viability is an essential characteristic of an applicant's proposals. No officer can be obliged to decide whether a business can make an economic contribution and employ people unless, of necessity, the officer also concludes that the business has a realistic chance of success. |
|
[7] The application will therefore be dismissed.
[8] Counsel did not ask the Court to certify a question.
"Robert Décary" Judge
Toronto, Ontario
July 8, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-367-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ALI BAKHSHAEE |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: JULY 8, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DÉCARY, J.
DATED: JULY 8, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Shoshana Green
For the Applicant
Mr. Stephen Gold
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Green & Spiegel
Barristers & Solicitors
Box 114, Standard Life Centre
2200 - 121 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3T9
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980708
Docket: IMM-367-98
Between:
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content