Date: 20090922
Docket: IMM-1395-09
Citation: 2009 FC 943
Ottawa,
Ontario, September 22, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
KASTRIOT
GJOKA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal
Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the IAD) pursuant to subsection
72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
(the Act), brought by Kastriot Gjoka (the Applicant) seeking to quash an IAD decision
that the Applicant is subject to section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 (the current Regulations) and referring
the matter back to the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Board of Canada (the ID) in order to determine whether the Applicant has met
the conditions imposed by the Regulations.
Issue
[2]
The
present application raises the following issue:
(a) Did
the IAD err in law when it rendered its decision in allowing the Minister's
appeal and finding that no Transitional Provisions applied which would allow
Entrepreneur conditions under the former Immigration Act and the
Immigration Regulations,1978 be imposed after the coming into force of the Act?
[3]
The
application for judicial review shall be allowed for the following reasons.
Factual Background
[4]
In
February 2001, the Applicant, a citizen of Albania, applied for
permanent residence status in Canada under the entrepreneur category. Also
included in the application was his wife, Anila Gjoka.
[5]
The
Applicant was selected on September 16, 2002 and was issued a permanent resident
visa on February 4, 2003 and arrived in Canada and was
landed on March 12, 2003.
[6]
On
May 28, 2004, in response to a letter from Canadian Immigration and
Citizenship, the Applicant submitted a monitoring report and an application to
cancel his terms and conditions of landing. No other monitoring reports were
submitted.
[7]
On
March 18, 2008, a report was made, pursuant to subsection 41(1) of the Act,
alleging the Applicant had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of
his landing.
[8]
An
admissibility hearing was held before the ID on May 7, 2008. At the hearing, the
Respondent submitted that the Applicant had not met the conditions imposed on
him under the Immigration Regulations, 1978, S.O.R./78-172 (the
former Regulations) more specifically paragraphs 23.1(1)(a) to (d)
of those Regulations.
[9]
This
situation is particular as the Applicant made his application for permanent
residency under the former Act but the selection decision and his permanent
resident visa were issued after the coming into force of the current Act.
[10]
Furthermore,
the Confirmation of Permanent Residence form signed by the Applicant
upon landing specified that the conditions to be met were those of the former
Regulations and section 23.1 of those Regulations was attached to the form.
Decision Under Review
[11]
An
admissibility hearing was held by the Immigration Division pursuant to
subsection 44(2) of the Act.
[12]
At
the admissibility hearing, the ID member found that the conditions imposed on
the Applicant were those of section 98 of the current Regulations and as such
the subsection 44(1) report alleging a failure to meet the conditions under the
former Regulations was unfounded.
[13]
Following
an appeal by the Minister, the IAD set aside the ID decision and referred the
matter back for reconsideration.
[14]
The
IAD accepted the conclusion that the Applicant is subject to the conditions set
out in section 98 of the current Regulations and referred the matter back to
the ID to determine whether or not the Applicant had met the conditions imposed
under the Act.
[15]
The
IAD decision is the impugned decision before this Court.
Relevant Legislation
[16]
The
pertinent legislative provisions are provided below in Appendix A.
The Applicant’s
Arguments
[17]
The
Applicant takes issue with the remedy ordered by the IAD but not the conclusion
that the terms and conditions to be met are those pursuant to section 98 of the
current Regulations.
[18]
The
Applicant argues that on the appeal, the IAD agreed with and accepted the
finding of the ID on the question of the application of section 98 of the
Regulations to the Applicant and that these are the conditions that must be met.
[19]
In
view of this, he argues, that the report which led to the admissibility hearing
is invalid as it alleges violations of the requirements under the former
Regulations.
[20]
Accordingly,
the Applicant argues that the proper remedy would have been to dismiss the
appeal and for the Minister to conduct a new investigation and a new report be
issued with the correct allegations.
The Respondent’s
Arguments
[21]
The
Respondent argues that the IAD erred in law in concluding that the Applicant is
subject to the conditions set out in section 98 of the current Regulations.
[22]
The
Respondent argues that the transitional scheme in the Act allows for the
conditions under section 23 of the former Regulations to be imposed on
individuals who applied under the former Act but landed under the current Act.
[23]
It
emphasizes on the transitional provisions under the current Act which allowed
for applicants in the economic categories, in this case entrepreneurs, to be
assessed using the factors of either Act as also allowing conditions from the
former Regulations to be imposed.
Analysis
Did the IAD err in law
when it rendered its decision in allowing the Minister's appeal and finding
that no Transitional Provisions applied which would allow Entrepreneur
conditions under the former Immigration Act and the Immigration Regulations,
1978 be imposed after the coming into force of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (IRPA)?
[24]
This
is a legal issue to which a standard of review of correctness is to be applied
(Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paragraphs
50, 51, 54 and 55).
[25]
To
begin, a brief overview of the legislation scheme might be helpful. The current
Act came into effect on June 28, 2002. The former Act was repealed when the
current Act came into force (s. 274).
[26]
Under
the current Act, applicants for permanent residence status can apply under an economic
class; included in that category are entrepreneurs (subsection 12(2)).
Section 88 of the Regulations defines an “entrepreneur” and section 98 sets out
the conditions that must be met by an entrepreneur who becomes a permanent
resident. In order to meet these conditions, the entrepreneur must, for
a period of at least one year within the period of three years after the day on
which they become a permanent resident, control a percentage of the
equity of a qualifying Canadian business equal to or greater than 33 1/3 per
cent; provide active and ongoing management of the business; and create at
least one full-time job for Canadian citizens or permanent residents, other
than the entrepreneur and their family members (subsections 98(1) to (3)).
[27]
Under
the former Act, it was also possible for permanent residents to apply under an
economic category as an entrepreneur. However the definition and the conditions
to be met under the former Regulations were different (s. 23).
[28]
The
current Act does provide however a transitional scheme in order to address the
issue of applications that were made before its coming into force. It creates a
general rule that all applications, proceedings and matters that were pending
or in progress before the coming into force of the Act are to be governed by it
upon it coming into force (s. 190). The legislation also allows for regulations
to govern issues arising in the transition from the former to the current Act
(s. 201).
[29]
Regulations
were enacted under the current Act regarding the assessment of applicants under
the economic classes, including entrepreneurs. The Regulations provide that,
until March 31, 2003, applicants who applied before January 1, 2002 were to be
assessed under the former Regulations (subsection 361(3)).
[30]
Following
further changes to the Regulations, for applicants in the entrepreneur category
who had applied before January 1, 2002 and whose applications were still
pending on December 1, 2003, assessment would be based on either the former or
the current Regulations thus allowing for the most favourable assessment to be
used (subsection 361(5.1)).
[31]
Finally,
section 363 of the current Regulations provides that section 98 of the same
does not apply in respect of an entrepreneur who was issued an immigrant visa
under the former Regulations.
[32]
The
transitional provisions in the Act clearly address the issue of assessment of
applicants seeking to enter Canada as permanent residents in the entrepreneur
category.
[33]
The
Respondent argues that the effect of section 363 of the current Act is that
applicants assessed under the former Regulations must meet the terms and
conditions under those regulations.
[34]
In
the case at bar, there is no issue to the fact that the Applicant was assessed
under the former Regulations.
[35]
Because
of the Transitional Provisions and section 318 of the current Regulations, the
Court finds that Entrepreneur class selected applicants under the former
Immigration Act are required to comply with post-admission to Canada terms
and condition as set out in paragraphs 23.1(1)(a) to (d) of the
former Immigration Regulations.
[36]
The
Court agrees with paragraphs 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Respondent’s Further
Memorandum of Argument. The interpretation of the Transitional Provisions by
the IAD is too restrictive. It implies that section 98 of the current Regulations
can be applied retroactively to Entrepreneur applicants who filed their application
prior to January 1, 2002, were assessed and issued visas as Entrepreneur under
the former Immigration Act and Regulations. Nothing in the Act,
the current Regulations or the Transitional Provisions support such a
proposition.
[37]
The
IAD was correct when it allowed the Minister's appeal but made a reviewable
error when it determined that no legislative authority applied which would
allow Entrepreneur conditions under the former Immigration Act and the Immigration
Regulations, 1978 be imposed after the coming into force of the Act.
[38]
The
Applicant proposes the following question for certification:
Is
it within the jurisdiction of the Appeal Division of the Immigration &
Refugee Board to make orders that have the effect of amending the Reports and
allegations that form the substance of an admissibility determination at an
initial Admissibility Hearing as contemplated in the IRPA?
[39]
The
Respondent proposes the following question for certification and alleges that
it is more relevant and determinative of the issue in the case at bar:
Where
an entrepreneur applicant filed his visa application prior to January 1, 2002,
do Transitional Provisions under Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and specifically section 363 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations, apply to an entrepreneur applicant, who was
assessed as an Entrepreneur within the meaning of s 2 (1), and s. 8 of the
former Immigration Regulations, 1978, and issued a visa after the
coming into force of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow
terms and conditions pursuant to s. 23.1 of the Immigration Regulations,
1978 to be imposed on the entrepreneur as a condition of landing.
[40]
The
Court is of the opinion that due to its determination in the present case, it
is unnecessary to certify any of the above-mentioned questions.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the
application for judicial review be allowed. The matter is remitted back for a
redetermination by a newly appointed panel. No question is certified.
“Michel
Beaudry”
APPENDIX A
Immigration Regulations,
1978,
S.O.R./78-172, S.O.R./93-44 at s. 17 (the former Regulations):
|
23.1(1) Entrepreneurs and their dependents
are prescribed as a class of immigrants in respect of which landing shall be
granted subject to the condition that, within a period of not more than two
years after the date of an entrepreneur’s landing, the entrepreneur
(a) establishes, purchases or makes a
substantial investment in a business or commercial venture in Canada so as to
make a significant contribution to the economy and whereby employment
opportunities in Canada are created or continued for one or more Canadian
citizens or permanent residents, other than the entrepreneur and the
entrepreneur’s dependants;
(b) participates actively and on an on-going
basis in the management of the business or commercial venture referred to in
paragraph (a);
(c) furnishes, at the times and places
specified by an immigration officer, evidence of efforts to comply with the
terms and conditions imposed pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b); and
(d) furnishes, at the time and place
specified by an immigration officer, evidence of compliance with the terms
and conditions imposed pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b);
|
23.1(1) Les entrepreneurs et les personnes à
leur charge constituent une catégorie réglementaire d’immigrants à l’égard
desquels il est obligatoire d’imposer les conditions suivantes au droit
d’établissement:
a) dans un délai d’au plus deux ans après la
date à laquelle le droit d’établissement lui est accordé, l’entrepreneur
établit ou achète au Canada une entreprise ou un commerce, ou y investit une
somme importante, de façon à contribuer d’une manière significative à la vie
économique et à permettre à au moins un citoyen canadien ou un résident
permanent, à l’exclusion de lui-même et des personnes à sa charge, d’obtenir
ou de conserver un emploi;
b) dans un délai d’au plus deux ans après la
date à laquelle le droit d’établissement lui est accordé, l’entrepreneur
participe activement et régulièrement à la gestion de l’entreprise ou au
commerce visé à l’alinéa a);
c) dans un délai d’au plus deux ans après la
date à laquelle le droit d’établissement lui est accordé, l’entrepreneur
fournit, aux dates, heures et lieux indiqués par l’agent d’immigration, la
preuve qu’il s’est efforcé de se conformer aux conditions imposées aux termes
des alinéas a) et b);
d) dans un délai d’au plus deux ans après la
date à laquelle le droit d’établissement lui est accordé, l’entrepreneur
fournit, à la date, à l’heure et au lieu indiqués par l’agent d’immigration,
la preuve qu’il s’est conformé aux conditions imposées aux termes des alinéas
a) et b).
|
Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
|
44. (1) An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent
resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is
inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which
report shall be transmitted to the Minister.
(2) If the Minister is of the opinion that the report is
well-founded, the Minister may refer the report to the Immigration Division
for an admissibility hearing, except in the case of a permanent resident who
is inadmissible solely on the grounds that they have failed to comply with
the residency obligation under section 28 and except, in the circumstances
prescribed by the regulations, in the case of a foreign national. In those
cases, the Minister may make a removal order.
(3) An officer or the Immigration Division may impose any
conditions, including the payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee
for compliance with the conditions, that the officer or the Division
considers necessary on a permanent resident or a foreign national who is the
subject of a report, an admissibility hearing or, being in Canada, a removal
order.
45. The Immigration Division, at the conclusion of an
admissibility hearing, shall make one of the following decisions:
(a) recognize the right to enter Canada of a
Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act, a person
registered as an Indian under the Indian Act or a permanent resident;
(b) grant permanent resident status or temporary resident
status to a foreign national if it is satisfied that the foreign national
meets the requirements of this Act;
(c) authorize a permanent resident or a foreign national,
with or without conditions, to enter Canada for further examination; or
(d) make the applicable removal order against a foreign
national who has not been authorized to enter Canada, if it
is not satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible, or against a
foreign national who has been authorized to enter Canada or a
permanent resident, if it is satisfied that the foreign national or the
permanent resident is inadmissible.
66. After considering the appeal of a decision, the Immigration
Appeal Division shall
(a) allow the appeal in accordance with section 67;
(b) stay the removal order in accordance with section 68;
or
(c) dismiss the appeal in accordance with section 69.
67. (1) To allow an appeal, the Immigration Appeal Division
must be satisfied that, at the time that the appeal is disposed of,
(a) the decision appealed is wrong in law or fact or
mixed law and fact;
(b) a principle of natural justice has not been observed;
or
(c) other than in the case of an appeal by the Minister,
taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the
decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant
special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.
(2) If the Immigration Appeal Division allows the appeal,
it shall set aside the original decision and substitute a determination that,
in its opinion, should have been made, including the making of a removal
order, or refer the matter to the appropriate decision-maker for reconsideration.
190. Every application, proceeding or matter under
the former Act that is pending or in progress immediately before the coming
into force of this section shall be governed by this Act on that coming into
force.
|
44. (1) S’il
estime que le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui se trouve au Canada est
interdit de territoire, l’agent peut établir un rapport circonstancié, qu’il
transmet au ministre.
(2)
S’il estime le rapport bien fondé, le ministre peut déférer l’affaire à la
Section de l’immigration pour enquête, sauf s’il s’agit d’un résident
permanent interdit de territoire pour le seul motif qu’il n’a pas respecté
l’obligation de résidence ou, dans les circonstances visées par les
règlements, d’un étranger; il peut alors prendre une mesure de renvoi.
(3) L’agent ou la Section de l’immigration
peut imposer les conditions qu’il estime nécessaires, notamment la remise
d’une garantie d’exécution, au résident permanent ou à l’étranger qui fait
l’objet d’un rapport ou d’une enquête ou, étant au Canada, d’une mesure de
renvoi.
45.
Après avoir procédé à une enquête, la Section de l’immigration rend telle des
décisions suivantes :
a) reconnaître le droit d’entrer au Canada au
citoyen canadien au sens de la Loi sur la citoyenneté, à la personne inscrite
comme Indien au sens de la Loi sur les Indiens et au résident permanent;
b) octroyer à l’étranger le statut de
résident permanent ou temporaire sur preuve qu’il se conforme à la présente
loi;
c) autoriser le résident permanent ou
l’étranger à entrer, avec ou sans conditions, au Canada pour contrôle
complémentaire;
d) prendre la mesure de renvoi applicable
contre l’étranger non autorisé à entrer au Canada et dont il n’est pas prouvé
qu’il n’est pas interdit de territoire, ou contre l’étranger autorisé à y
entrer ou le résident permanent sur preuve qu’il est interdit de territoire.
66. Il est statué sur l’appel comme il suit :
a) il y fait droit conformément à l’article
67;
b) il est sursis à la mesure de renvoi
conformément à l’article 68;
c) il est rejeté conformément à l’article 69.
67. (1) Il
est fait droit à l’appel sur preuve qu’au moment où il en est disposé :
a) la décision attaquée est erronée en droit,
en fait ou en droit et en fait;
b) il y a eu manquement à un principe de
justice naturelle;
c) sauf dans le cas de l’appel du ministre,
il y a — compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché —
des motifs d’ordre humanitaire justifiant, vu les autres circonstances de
l’affaire, la prise de mesures spéciales.
(2) La décision attaquée est cassée; y est
substituée celle, accompagnée, le cas échéant, d’une mesure de renvoi, qui
aurait dû être rendue, ou l’affaire est renvoyée devant l’instance
compétente.
190. La présente loi s’applique, dès l’entrée
en vigueur du présent article, aux demandes et procédures présentées ou
instruites, ainsi qu’aux autres questions soulevées, dans le cadre de
l’ancienne loi avant son entrée en vigueur et pour lesquelles aucune décision
n’a été prise.
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227.
|
88. (1) The definitions in this subsection.
“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).
98. (1) Subject to subsection (2), an entrepreneur who
becomes a permanent resident must meet the following conditions:
(a) the entrepreneur must control a percentage of the
equity of a qualifying Canadian business equal to or greater than 33 1/3 per
cent;
(b) the entrepreneur must provide active and ongoing
management of the qualifying Canadian business; and
(c) the entrepreneur must create at least one incremental
full-time job equivalent in the qualifying Canadian business for Canadian
citizens or permanent residents, other than the entrepreneur and their family
members.
(3) The entrepreneur must meet the conditions
for a period of at least one year within the period of
three years after the day on which the entrepreneur becomes a permanent
resident.
(4) An entrepreneur who becomes a permanent resident must
provide to an officer evidence of compliance with the conditions within the
period of three years after the day on which the entrepreneur becomes a
permanent resident.
(5) An entrepreneur must provide to an officer:
(a) not later than six months after the day on which the
entrepreneur becomes a permanent resident, their residential address and
telephone number; and
(b) during the period beginning 18 months after and
ending 24 months after the day on which the entrepreneur becomes a permanent
resident, evidence of their efforts to comply with the conditions.
318. Terms and conditions imposed under the former Act
become conditions imposed under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
361. (1) If, before the day on which this section comes
into force, a foreign national referred to in subsection (2) has been
assessed by a visa officer and awarded the number of units of assessment
required by the former Regulations, that assessment is, for the purpose of
these Regulations, an award of points equal or superior to the minimum number
of points required of
(a) a skilled worker, in the case of a foreign national
described in paragraph (2)(a);
(b) an investor, in the case of a foreign national
described in paragraph (2)(b);
(c) an entrepreneur, in the case of a foreign national
described in paragraph (2)(c); or
a self-employed person, in the case of a foreign national
described in paragraph (2)(d).
(2) Subsection (1) applies in respect of a foreign
national who submitted an application under the former Regulations, as one of
the following, for an immigrant visa that is pending immediately before the
day on which this section comes into force:
(a) a person described in subparagraph 9(1)(b)(i) or
paragraph 10(1)(b) of the former Regulations;
(b) an investor; or
(c) an entrepreneur.
Application before January 1, 2002
(3) During the period beginning on the day on which this
section comes into force and ending on March 31, 2003, units of assessment
shall be awarded to a foreign national, in accordance with the former
Regulations, if the foreign national is an immigrant who,
(a) is referred to in subsection 8(1) of those
Regulations, other than a provincial nominee, and
(b) before January 1, 2002, made an application for an
immigrant visa under those Regulations that is still pending on the day on
which this section comes into force and has not, before that day, been
awarded units of assessment under those Regulations.
...
(5.1) Beginning on December 1, 2003, a foreign national
who is an immigrant who made an application under the former Regulations
before January 1, 2002 for an immigrant visa as an entrepreneur and whose
application is still pending on December 1, 2003 and who has not, before that
day, been awarded units of assessment under those Regulations must, in order
to become a permanent resident as a member of the entrepreneur class,
(a) be determined to be an entrepreneur within the
meaning of subsection 2(1) of those Regulations and be awarded at least the
minimum number of units of assessment required by those Regulations for an
entrepreneur; or
(b) be an entrepreneur within the meaning of subsection
88(1) of these Regulations and obtain a minimum of 35 points based on the
factors set out in subsection 102(1) of these Regulations.
363. For greater certainty, section 98 does not apply in
respect of an entrepreneur within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the
former Regulations who was issued an immigrant visa under subparagraph 9(1)
(b)(ii) or (c)(i) of those Regulations.
|
88. (1) Les définitions qui suivent
s’appliquent à la présente section. « 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).
98. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2),
l’entrepreneur qui devient résident permanent est assujetti aux conditions
suivantes:
a) il a le contrôle d’un pourcentage des
capitaux propres de l’entreprise canadienne
admissible égal ou supérieur à 33 1/3 %;
b) il assure la gestion de celle-ci de façon
active et suivie;
c) il crée pour des citoyens canadiens ou des
résidents permanents, à l’exclusion de lui-même et des membres de sa famille,
au moins un équivalent d’emploi à temps plein dans l’entreprise canadienne admissible.
(3) L’entrepreneur doit se conformer aux
conditions imposées pendant une période minimale d’un an au cours des trois
années suivant le moment où il devient résident permanent.
(4) L’entrepreneur qui devient résident
permanent fournit à l’agent, dans les trois ans suivant la date où il devient
résident permanent, la preuve qu’il se conforme aux conditions imposées.
(5) L’entrepreneur fournit à l’agent :
a) au plus tard six mois après la date où il
devient résident permanent, l’adresse de sa résidence et son numéro de
téléphone;
b) à un moment quelconque au cours de la
période commençant dix-huit mois après la date où il devient résident
permanent et se terminant vingt-quatre mois après cette date, la preuve des
efforts qu’il a déployés pour se conformer aux conditions imposées.
318. Les conditions imposées sous le régime
de l’ancienne loi sont réputées imposées aux termes de la Loi sur
l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés.
361. (1) Si, avant l’entrée en vigueur du
présent article, un étranger visé au paragraphe (2) a été évalué par un agent
des visas et a obtenu le nombre de points d’appréciation exigés par l’ancien
règlement, cette évaluation confère, pour l’application du présent règlement,
un nombre de points égal ou supérieur au nombre minimum de points requis pour
se voir attribuer :
a) la qualité de travailleur qualifié, dans
le cas de l’étranger visé à l’alinéa (2)a);
b) la qualité d’investisseur, dans le cas de
l’étranger visé à l’alinéa (2)b);
c) la qualité d’entrepreneur, dans le cas de
l’étranger visé à l’alinéa (2)c);
d) la qualité de travailleur autonome, dans
le cas de l’étranger visé à l’alinéa (2)a).
(2) Le paragraphe (1) s’applique à l’étranger
qui a présenté une demande de visa d’immigrant conformément à l’ancien
règlement — pendante à l’entrée en vigueur du présent article — à titre,
selon le cas :
a) de personne visée au sous-alinéa 9(1)b)(i)
ou à l’alinéa 10(1)b) de l’ancien règlement;
b) d’investisseur;
c) d’entrepreneur.
Demandes : avant le 1er
janvier 2002
(3) Pendant la période commençant à la date
d’entrée en vigueur du présent article et se terminant le 31 mars 2003, les
points d’appréciation sont attribués conformément à l’ancien règlement à
l’étranger qui est un immigrant qui :
a) d’une part, est visé au paragraphe 8(1) de
ce règlement, autre qu’un candidat d’une province;
b) d’autre part, a fait, conformément à ce
même règlement, une demande de visa d’immigrant avant le 1er
janvier 2002, pendante à l’entrée en vigueur du présent article, et n’a pas
obtenu de points d’appréciation en vertu de ce règlement.
...
(5.1) À compter du 1er décembre
2003, l’étranger qui est un immigrant et qui, avant le 1er janvier
2002, a présenté conformément à l’ancien règlement une demande de visa
d’immigrant à titre d’entrepreneur et dont la demande est pendante le 1er
décembre 2003 et qui n’a pas obtenu avant cette date de points d’appréciation
en vertu de l’ancien règlement doit, pour devenir résident permanent au titre
de la catégorie des entrepreneurs :
a) soit s’être vu attribuer la qualité
d’entrepreneur au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de l’ancien règlement et obtenir au
moins le nombre minimum de points d’appréciation exigés par l’ancien
règlement à l’égard d’un entrepreneur;
b) soit avoir la qualité d’entrepreneur au
sens du paragraphe 88(1) du présent règlement et obtenir un minimum de 35
points au regard des critères visés à son paragraphe 102(1).
363. Il est entendu que l’article 98 du
présent règlement ne s’applique pas à l’entrepreneur,
au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de
l’ancien règlement, qui a obtenu un visa
d’immigrant en vertu des sous-alinéas 9(1)b)(ii) ou c)(i) de ce règlement.
|
Email this Content