Date: 20031211
Docket: IMM-2726-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1447
Ottawa, Ontario, this 11th day of December 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
EBRAHIM AGCHELOO
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ebrahim Agcheloo is a businessman from Iran. He applied to become a permanent resident of Canada as an investor. A visa officer at the Canadian embassy in Paris turned him down because he was not satisfied with the documentation Mr. Agcheloo provided in support of his application. Mr. Agcheloo argues that the officer treated him unfairly and made a factual error in the valuation of certain properties. He asks me to order another visa officer to reconsider his application.
[2] I cannot fault the visa officer for the manner in which he evaluated Mr. Agcheloo's file and, therefore, must dismiss this application for judicial review.
Issues
[3] Mr. Agcheloo raised two arguments:
1. Did the visa officer fail to give Mr. Agcheloo an opportunity to address the officer's concerns about the source of Mr. Agcheloo's funds?
2. Did the visa officer make a mistake about the value of Mr. Agcheloo's property?
1. Did the visa officer fail to give Mr. Agcheloo an opportunity to address the officer's concerns about the source of Mr. Agcheloo's funds?
[4] Potential investors must show that their admission to Canada would not be contrary to the law, Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, s. 8(1) (relevant enactments are set out in an Annex). In the case of investors, this means that they must establish that the funds they propose to invest in Canada have a legal and legitimate source: Oei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 FCT 466, [2002] F.C.J. No. 600 (QL)(T.D.). Accordingly, visa officers who evaluate investors' applications naturally expect them to provide information and documentation directed to that issue. The visa officer who reviewed Mr. Agcheloo's application felt that his supporting evidence was inadequate.
[5] Mr. Agcheloo had two main sources of income. The first was a business involving the sale of cars. The second was a small jewellery shop. Through these combined entrepreneurial efforts, Mr. Agcheloo had accumulated about $1.5 million in assets. Most of his income came from the car business, but Mr. Agcheloo had few sales records or other financial statements showing how his profits from this business had been realized. The visa officer scheduled an interview with Mr. Agcheloo in order to find out more. In particular, he told Mr. Agcheloo to bring to the interview "all relevant documentation concerning the source of his personal funds and assets".
[6] Mr. Agcheloo brought some documents to the interview, but they did not contain the kind of information the visa officer was looking for. According to the officer, he asked Mr. Agcheloo why he did not have the usual accounting records and tax documents that businesses normally keep. Mr. Agcheloo explained that his company was not registered as a legal entity and that most transactions were in cash. Without the necessary evidence, the officer was not satisfied that Mr. Agcheloo met the statutory definition of an investor and, accordingly, denied Mr. Agcheloo's application for failure to supply the documents he had requested: Immigration Act, s. 9(3).
[7] Mr. Agcheloo argues that the officer should have given him a further opportunity to provide the kinds of documents the officer sought. I do not agree. The onus was on Mr. Agcheloo to support his application with evidence that he met the definition of an investor under the Act. He did not do so. Noting this, the visa officer specifically told Mr. Agcheloo to bring to the interview documents that would identify the source of his funds. Again, he did not do so. I do not think the officer's duties to Mr. Agcheloo go any further than that. Mr. Agcheloo argued that the officer should have specifically described the kind of document he needed and given him another chance to provide it. In my view, the officer gave Mr. Agcheloo ample opportunity to provide the evidence that he knew, or should have known, was required to establish that he was a legitimate investor. The officer's duty to treat Mr. Agcheloo fairly goes no further than that.
2. Did the visa officer make a mistake about the value of Mr. Agcheloo's property?
[8] According to what records he had, Mr. Agcheloo appeared to have a fairly modest income. Most of his records related to his jewellery business, not his car sales. They did not show the complete picture, but they were all the officer had to go on.
[9] According to his notes, the officer wondered how Mr. Agcheloo's property escalated in value from $420,000 in May 2001 to $1,000,000 six months later. Mr. Agcheloo says that the officer was confused as between the value of the property when it was purchased, as compared to its current value. It did not more than double its value in six months; rather, its value increased over a five-year period, from its purchase in 1996 to the year 2001.
[10] I have reviewed the record and note that Mr. Agcheloo stated in a sworn declaration in May 2001 that he owned a house and that "this property is valued at $420,000". In his immigrant application form, prepared in December 2001, he mentioned the same property and said that its "estimated current market value" was $1,000,000.
[11] The officer naturally found the two statements to be incongruous. I cannot find any clear error on his part. Any confusion was a product of Mr. Agcheloo's own statements.
[12] In any case, considering the context in which the officer's notes were prepared, he appears to have been primarily concerned about the source of Mr. Agcheloo's funds. Again, that concern arose from Mr. Agcheloo's own failure to provide adequate documentation on that issue. Any error about the value of a particular asset was relatively innocuous in the overall circumstances.
[13] It follows that I find no basis on which to overturn the visa officer's decision not to grant Mr. Agcheloo's application. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
[14] Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
| Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2
Burden of proof
8. (1) Where a person seeks to come into Canada, the burden of proving that that person has a right to come into Canada or that his admission would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations rests on that person.
Duty to answer questions
9. (3) 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.
|
|
Loi sur l'immigration, L.R.C. 1985, ch. I-2
Charge de la preuve
8. (1) 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.
Obligations
9. (3) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-2726-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: EBRAHIM AGCHELOO v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: DECEMBER 11, 2003
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Zool K.B. Suleman FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Michael Butterfield FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Suleman and Company
Barrister and Solicitor
Suite 1500 - 701 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V7Y 1C6 FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content