Date: 20051027
Docket: IMM-2766-05
Citation: 2005 FC 1462
Vancouver, British Columbia, Thursday, the 27th day of October, 2005
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM
BETWEEN:
NIRMAL SINGH BHARAJ
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Applicant is a citizen of India and a businessman. On December 23, 2002, the Applicant submitted an application for a permanent resident visa to the Canadian High Commission in Singapore. The Applicant was seeking a permanent resident visa as a member of the "entrepreneur class".
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[2] The Visa Officer assessed the Applicant's permanent residence application and determined that he did not meet the definition of "entrepreneur" as set out in s. 88(1) of the Regulations.
[3] Section 97(2) of the Regulations states that if the foreign national is not an "entrepreneur" within the meaning of s. 88(1) of the Regulations, the Visa Officer assessing the foreign national's permanent residence application must refuse the application.
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSIONS
[4] The Applicant makes two main submissions:
1. The Visa Officer breached the principles of fairness by:
i. Not providing sufficient reasons for refusal.
ii. Not advising the Applicant of concerns and by not providing the Applicant an opportunity to disabuse the Visa Officer of his concerns.
iii. By not interviewing the Applicant.
[5] Let me rapidly set aside points i. and ii. Justice Simpson in Bellido v. MCI, 2005 FC 452, states at paragraph 35 that:
[35] The Applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that an application meets the requirements for a visa and there is no positive obligation to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to address any concerns the visa officer may have in considering an application (Nehme v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2004] F.C.J. No. 49, at para. 18)). As stated by Justice Muldoon in Asghar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1997] F.C.J. No. 1091 (F.C.T.D.), at para. 21:
[O]ne may conclude that this [duty of fairness] does not arise merely because the visa officer has not been convinced, after weighing the evidence, that the application is well founded. The visa officer's task is precisely to weigh the evidence submitted by the applicant. In the Court's words, in light of the onus that is on the applicant to produce evidence, it is not apparent that the visa officer should be compelled to give him a "running score" at every step of the proceeding [Covrig v. M.C.I., (1995), 104 F.T.R. 41]
2. The Visa Officer's decision was unreasonable and based upon a failure to consider all the relevant facts.
RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS
[6] The Respondent submits that the Visa Officer assessed the Applicant's permanent resident application fairly and reasonably.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[7] Visa applications are evaluated on the standard of review of reasonableness simpliciter, Sahota v. MCI, 2005 FC 856, at paragraph 11.
[8] This is a mixed analysis; the Visa Officer is applying the facts to the law.
RELEVANT SECTIONS OF IRPA AND OF THE REGULATIONS
[9] In this case, there are many sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Regulations) to consider. I will start by citing the relevant sections.
[10] Under the section of Permanent Residents, section 12(2) of IRPA states that:
|
12. (2) A foreign national may be selected as a member of the economic class on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada.
|
12. (2) La sélection des étrangers de la catégorie « immigration économique » se fait en fonction de leur capacité à réussir leur établissement économique au Canada.
|
[11] Section 12(2) of IRPA and section 97 of the Regulations must be read together. Section 97 states that:
|
97. (1) For the purposes of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the entrepreneur class is hereby prescribed as a class of persons who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada and who are entrepreneurs within the meaning of subsection 88(1).
(2) If a foreign national who makes an application as a member of the entrepreneur class is not an entrepreneur within the meaning of subsection 88(1), the application shall be refused and no further assessment is required.
|
97. (1) Pour l'application du paragraphe 12(2) de la Loi, la catégorie des entrepreneurs est une catégorie réglementaire de personnes qui peuvent devenir résidents permanents du fait de leur capacité à réussir leur établissement économique au Canada et qui sont des entrepreneurs au sens du paragraphe 88(1).(2) Si le demandeur au titre de la catégorie des entrepreneurs n'est pas un entrepreneur au sens du paragraphe 88(1), l'agent met fin à l'examen de la demande et la rejette.
|
[12] Therefore, if the Applicant is not an "entrepreneur" as defined by s. 88(1), the Visa Officer must refuse the Applicant's application for permanent residency without requiring any further assessment.
[13] A foreign national who is applying for permanent residence in Canada in the "entrepreneur class" must satisfy the definition of "entrepreneur" as set out in s. 88(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Regulations.
[14] Section 88(1) of the Regulations define "entrepreneur" as follows:
|
"entrepreneur" means a foreign national who
(a) has business experience;
(b) has a legally obtained minimum net worth; and
(c) provides a written statement to an officer that they intend and will be able to meet the conditions referred to in subsections 98(1) to (5).
|
« entrepreneur » Étranger qui, à la fois :
a) a de l'expérience dans l'exploitation d'une entreprise;
b) a l'avoir net minimal et l'a obtenu licitement;
c) fournit à un agent une déclaration écrite portant qu'il a l'intention et est en mesure de remplir les conditions visées aux paragraphes 98(1) à (5).
|
[15] We must now define "business experience" as per section 88(1) of the Regulations:
|
"business experience", in respect of
(b) an entrepreneur, other than an entrepreneur selected by a province, means a minimum of two years of experience consisting of two one-year periods of experience in the management of a qualifying business and the control of a percentage of equity of the qualifying business during the period beginning five years before the date of application for a permanent resident visa and ending on the day a determination is made in respect of the application;
|
« expérience dans l'exploitation d'une entreprise » :
b) s'agissant d'un entrepreneur, autre qu'un entrepreneur sélectionné par une province, s'entend de l'expérience d'une durée d'au moins deux ans composée de deux périodes d'un an d'expérience dans la gestion d'une entreprise admissible et le contrôle d'un pourcentage des capitaux propres de celle-ci au cours de la période commençant cinq ans avant la date où la demande de visa de résident permanent est faite et prenant fin à la date où il est statué sur celle-ci;
|
[16] Finally, we must define "qualifying business", as per section 88(1) of the Regulations:
|
"qualifying business" means a business -- other than a business operated primarily for the purpose of deriving investment income such as interest, dividends or capital gains -- for which, during the year under consideration, there is documentary evidence of any two of the following:
(a) the percentage of equity multiplied by the number of full time job equivalents is equal to or greater than two full-time job equivalents per year;
(b) the percentage of equity multiplied by the total annual sales is equal to or greater than $500,000;
(c) the percentage of equity multiplied by the net income in the year is equal to or greater than $50,000; and
(d) the percentage of equity multiplied by the net assets at the end of the year is equal to or greater than $125,000.
|
« entreprise admissible » Toute entreprise -- autre qu'une entreprise exploitée principalement dans le but de retirer un revenu de placement, tels des intérêts, des dividendes ou des gains en capitaux -- à l'égard de laquelle il existe une preuve documentaire établissant que, au cours de l'année en cause, elle satisfaisait à deux des critères suivants :
a) le pourcentage des capitaux propres, multiplié par le nombre d'équivalents d'emploi à temps plein, est égal ou supérieur à deux équivalents d'emploi à temps plein par an;
b) le pourcentage des capitaux propres, multiplié par le chiffre d'affaires annuel, est égal ou supérieur à 500 000 $;
c) le pourcentage des capitaux propres, multiplié par le revenu net annuel, est égal ou supérieur à 50 000 $;
d) le pourcentage des capitaux propres, multiplié par l'actif net à la fin de l'année, est égal ou supérieur à 125 000 $.
|
[17] Finally, we must define "percentage of equity", as per section 88(1):
|
"percentage equity" means
(a) in respect of a sole proprietorship, 100 per cent of the equity of the sole proprietorship controlled by a foreign national or their spouse or common-law partner;
(b) in respect of a corporation, the percentage of the issued and outstanding voting shares of the capital stock of the corporation controlled by a foreign national or their spouse or common-law partner; and
(c) in respect of a partnership or joint venture, the percentage of the profit or loss of the partnership or joint venture to which a foreign national or their spouse or common-law partner is entitled.
|
« pourcentage des capitaux propres »
a) Dans le cas d'une entreprise à propriétaire unique non dotée de la personnalité morale, la totalité des capitaux propres contrôlés par l'étranger ou son époux ou conjoint de fait;
b) dans le cas d'une société par actions, la part des actions du capital social avec droit de vote émises et en circulation que contrôle l'étranger ou son époux ou conjoint de fait;
c) dans le cas d'une société de personnes ou d'une coentreprise, la part des bénéfices ou des pertes portée à l'actif ou au passif de l'étranger ou de son époux ou conjoint de fait.
|
ANALYSIS
[18] In his decision, the Visa Officer starts by providing the legal background of IRPA and the Regulations. At page two of his decision, the Visa Officer states that the Applicant did not satisfy him that Bharaj & Co. is a "qualified business" as defined in s. 88(1) of the Regulations. The only reason provided by the Visa Officer was that the Applicant indicated that the total annual sales of his business for 1997-1998 were 35 686 302 rupees. But, according to the Applicant's auditor's report, the actual total annual sales was 3 568 302 rupees.
[19] Let me once again consider two definitions, "qualifying business" and "percentage equity":
"qualifying business" means a business -- ¼ for which, during the year under consideration [1996-1997], there is documentary evidence of any two of the following:
(a) the percentage of equity multiplied by the number of full time job equivalents is equal to or greater than two full-time job equivalents per year;
(b) the percentage of equity multiplied by the total annual sales is equal to or greater than $500,000;
(c) the percentage of equity multiplied by the net income in the year is equal to or greater than $50,000; and
(d) the percentage of equity multiplied by the net assets at the end of the year is equal to or greater than $125,000.
"percentage equity" means [considering the facts]
(a) in respect of a sole proprietorship, 100 per cent of the equity of the sole proprietorship controlled by a foreign national or their spouse or common-law partner;
[20] In the simplest terms, the Applicant must demonstrate that a "qualifying business" means a business, in which he is the sole proprietor, for which in any two years in the period beginning five years before the date of the permanent residence application and ending on the day a determination is made in respect of the visa application, there must be documentary evidence of two of the following four items:
a) At least two full time job equivalents per year
b) Total sales equal or greater than $500,000 per year
c) Net income equal to or greater than $50,000 per year
d) Net assets equal to or greater than $125,000 at the end of the year.
[21] According to the Applicant, he does satisfy the definition of "qualifying business", as he satisfies the first two criteria. The first is:
(a) the percentage of equity multiplied by the number of full time job equivalents is equal to or greater than two full-time job equivalents per year;
The Applicant, states at paragraph 3 of his Affidavit that he has employed between four and six employees in 1996-1997.
[22] The second is:
(b) the percentage of equity multiplied by the total annual sales is equal to or greater than $500,000;
According to the Applicant, he is the sole proprietor of Bharaj & Co. The name of the business "Bharaj & Co." might lead one to believe that the business of the Applicant is a corporation. However, on the facts, Mr. Bharaj is the sole proprietor of his agricultural business. He does have a net worth of more than $500, 000 CDN, mostly due to the value of his agricultural land in India, worth $400,000 CDN. All of the Applicant's personal assets are also his business assets as we are dealing with a business in sole proprietorship, and not a corporate entity. At page 5 of Exhibit A, in the net worth box, the Applicant's net worth as calculated by the Immigration Officer is $591,576.00 CDN.
[23] Therefore, he satisfies the second condition.
[24] The Visa Officer did not address these two factors in his decision. As these factors are necessary to determine if the Applicant has a "qualifying business", I believe it is fundamental that the Visa Officer mention them in his reasons. The Visa Officer cited IRPA and the Regulations, but did not clearly apply the facts to the law he cited.
[25] Furthermore, I am satisfied that the Visa Officer did not adequately motivate his decision, as he only provided one reason: the discrepancy in the total annual sales. The Visa Officer writes:
¼ Although you have indicated that the total annual sales of your business for 1997-1998 was 35 686 302 rupees, the actual total sales according to the auditor's report was 3 568 302 rupees.
[26] This single explanation is not sufficient. The Visa Officer did not even state which part of the "qualifying business" test the Applicant did not meet. Hence, I cannot be certain that the Visa Officer considered all the relevant facts.
CONCLUSION
[27] For the reasons mentioned above, the Visa Officer's decision was unreasonable; the application for judicial review will be allowed.
[28] The Applicant's visa application will be sent for re-determination by a different Visa Officer who will, on the facts placed before him or her, make a new determination which will be fully motivated.
[29] No question was submitted for certification.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The application for judicial review is allowed.
2. The Applicant's visa application will be sent for re-determination by a different Visa Officer who will, on the facts placed before him or her, make a new determination which will be fully motivated.
(Sgd.) "Max M. Teitelbaum"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2766-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: NIRMAL SINGH BHARAJ
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: October 26, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: TEITELBAUM J.
DATED: October 27, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mir Huculak FOR APPLICANT
R. Keith Reimer FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mir Huculak FOR APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Vancouver, BC
Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content