Date: 20070809
Docket: IMM-999-07
Citation: 2007
FC 829
Vancouver, British
Columbia,
August 9, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
BETWEEN:
GURCHARAN
SINGH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of a
visa officer’s decision dated January 12, 2007, denying an application for a
permanent resident visa as an "entrepreneur". The visa officer decided
that the applicant did not meet the minimum requirements for business
experience in a “qualifying business” as defined in the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the Regulations).
[2]
The applicant, a citizen of India, resides and works in the Philippines. He has been involved in
business for over 25 years and has a personal net worth exceeding $1,500,000. He
applied on June 24, 2002, for a permanent resident visa. In support of his
application, he provided a list of assets, proof of bank deposits held by him
and his wife, valuation of real estate owned in India, and financial statements for three businesses: Sanjit Trading
Corporation, Gurcharan Singh Trading, and Gurcharan Sing Puar.
I. Issues
[3]
The issues raised in this application are:
1. Did
the visa officer err in finding that the applicant did not meet the minimum
requirements for his business to be a “qualifying business” as defined in the
Regulations in order to be an entrepreneur under the Regulations?
2. Did
the visa officer have a duty to provide the applicant with an interview when
the visa officer decided that the evidence submitted by the applicant was
insufficient to qualify the applicant as an entrepreneur?
II. Relevant Legislation
[4]
The legislation relevant to this application is
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the
Regulations). The applicable provisions of the Regulations are set out in Annex
A of these reasons.
III. Standard of Review
[5]
The first issue raised in this application
concerns a question of mixed law and fact, namely whether the legal definition
of a “qualifying business” applies to the facts underlying the applicant’s
business experience. Given that the visa officer is entitled to some deference
in respect of factual findings, but not in respect of the determination of the
correct legal test to apply to those factual findings, the appropriate standard
of review is one of reasonableness.
[6]
With respect to the second issue, this is a
question of law in which the Court has greater expertise than the visa officer so
that the appropriate standard of review is correctness.
IV. Decision under Review
[7]
The visa officer was not satisfied that the
applicant was a member of the entrepreneur class. In the decision letter under
review, the visa officer set out the requirements of subsections 97(1) and
88(1) of the Regulations. In particular, the visa officer stated:
Subsection
88(1) of the regulations states that “business experience”, in respect of an
entrepreneur, means the management of a qualifying business and the control of
a percentage of equity of the qualifying business for at least two years in 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.
Subsection
88(1) defines “qualifying business” as a business – other than a business
operated primarily for the purpose of deriving investment income such as
interest, dividends or capital gains – for which, in each of any two years in
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, 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 2 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;
(d)
the percentage of equity multiplied by the net assets at the end of the year is
equal to or greater than $125,000.
[…]
You
do not come within the meaning of entrepreneur because you have not satisfied
me that you have business experience in a qualifying business as defined in the
regulations. Despite our request to submit substantive documentation, you have
not demonstrated that you meet at least two of the above criteria of a
qualifying business. As a result, you do not meet the requirements of
subsection 97(2) of the regulations. Please note, I am convinced, from the
information contained on the file, that this assessment accurately reflects
your chances of successfully settling in Canada. […]
V. Analysis
A. Scheme of the Regulations
for Entrepreneurs
[8]
A person who qualifies as an entrepreneur in the
Regulations may become a permanent resident on the basis that an entrepreneur
will have demonstrated their ability to become economically established in Canada.
[9]
An entrepreneur is defined under s. 88 of the
Regulations as, inter alia, a person with a minimum of two years
of experience in the management of a "qualifying business". A "qualifying
business" is defined as a business, other than a business for the purpose
of deriving investment income, with:
1. two or
more full-time employees per year;
2. annual
sales equal to or greater than $500,000;
3. net
income equal to or greater than $50,000; and
4. net
assets equal to or greater than $125,000.
The
"qualifying business" must meet any two of these criteria.
[10]
The Court finds, and the parties agree, that the
"assets" of the qualifying business are different from the "net
worth" of the entrepreneur, which is the second criterion of the definition
of an entrepreneur. That criterion requires that a person have a minimum net
worth of $300,000. However, as explained, the parties do not dispute that the
minimum net worth of the applicant, which is in excess of $1.5 million dollars,
is different than the minimum requirement of the assets of the qualifying
business, which is $125,000.
B. Issue No. 1 Did the visa officer
err in finding that the applicant did not meet the minimum requirements for his
business to be a "qualifying business" as defined in the regulations
in order to be an entrepreneur under the Regulations?
[11]
The applicant provided financial information
with respect to three businesses which he operated in the Philippines for the financial years 1997 to
2004 inclusive. The Court has reviewed this information and found that it is,
in many respects, confusing and inconsistent. Sometimes the financial
information is provided for two businesses and sometimes for three. With
respect to one business, sometimes the information shows that the applicant
owns a percentage of the business and at other times that he owns all of the
business. Some of the information shows that one of the businesses is a
corporation and at other times the information shows that it is a
proprietorship. The consensus of the Court and counsel is that it is difficult
to make sense of parts of the financial information provided by the applicant
in support of his application.
[12]
In any event, the respondent has given the
applicant the benefit of the doubt with respect to these inconsistencies and
has proceeded to decide whether the financial records demonstrate that the
combined businesses of the applicant meet the minimum requirement of the
definition of "qualifying business" for two of the eight years for
which financial records were provided. Based on this financial information, the
visa officer found that the combined businesses of the applicant did not for
any two years meet the minimum requirement of $500,000 for annual sales, the
minimum requirement of $50,000 for net income or the minimum requirement of
$125,000 for net assets.
[13]
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the visa
officer reasonably concluded that the applicant was not a member of the
entrepreneur class as established under subsection 97(1) of the Regulations since
he did not establish the minimal requirements set out in subsection 97(2).
C. Issue No. 2 Did the visa officer
have a duty to provide the applicant with an interview when the visa officer
decided that the evidence submitted by the applicant was insufficient to
qualify the applicant as an entrepreneur?
[14]
The duty to act fairly on the visa officer does
not relieve the applicant from the onus of satisfying the visa officer that the
applicant has met the requirements of the Regulations. The visa officer is
under no duty to request that better further evidence be produced. As I held in
Heer v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2001
F.C.J. No. 1853 at paras. 20 and 21, the applicant has knowledge that he must
provide proof that he qualifies as an entrepreneur. When the evidence submitted
is deficient or insufficient, the visa officer is not obliged to provide the
applicant with a preliminary finding in this regard, or an interview, or with
another opportunity to present more evidence. The applicant should have been
well aware of the minimum requirement with respect to annual sales, net income
and business assets in order to be a "qualifying business" under the
definition of an entrepreneur. Accordingly, there is no error of law in failing
to provide the applicant with either an interview or another opportunity to
address the concerns of the visa officer with respect to the deficient
financial information provided by the applicant.
VI. Conclusion
[15]
For these reasons, this application must be
dismissed.
[16]
At the conclusion of the hearing, it was clear
that this case has not raised an important question which should be certified
for an appeal. The respondent initially proposed a question which both parties
and the Court agreed would not be determinative of this appeal. Accordingly,
both parties and the Court agree that this case does not raise a question which
should be certified.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this application for judicial review is
dismissed.
"Michael
A. Kelen"
Annex "A"
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227
Definitions
88. (1) The definitions in this
subsection apply in this Division.
[…]
"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; and ( expérience dans l'exploitation d'une
entreprise ) […]
"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
)
[…]
"full-time job equivalent" means
1,950 hours of paid employment. ( équivalent
d'emploi à temps plein )
[…]
"minimum net worth" means
(a) in respect of an
entrepreneur, other than an entrepreneur selected by a province, $300,000;
and ( avoir net minimal )
[…]
"net assets" , in respect of a
qualifying business or a qualifying Canadian business, means the assets of
the business, minus the liabilities of the business, plus shareholder loans
made to the business by the foreign national who is making or has made an
application for a permanent resident visa and their spouse or common-law
partner. ( actif net )
"net income" , in respect of a
qualifying business or a qualifying Canadian business, means the after tax
profit or loss of the business plus remuneration by the business to the
foreign national who is making or has made an application for a permanent
resident visa and their spouse or common-law partner. ( revenu net )
"net worth" , in respect of […]
(b) an entrepreneur,
other than an entrepreneur selected by a province, means the fair market
value of all of the assets of the entrepreneur and their spouse or common-law
partner minus the fair market value of all of their liabilities; and ( avoir net )
[…]
"percentage of 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 ) […]
"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 ) […]
Members of the class
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).
Minimal
requirements
(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.
|
Définitions
88. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la
présente section.
« actif net » S’agissant d’une
entreprise admissible ou d’une entreprise canadienne admissible, s’entend de
l’excédent de l’actif de celle-ci sur son passif, augmenté des prêts octroyés
à l’entreprise par l’étranger qui demande ou a demandé un visa de résident
permanent et son époux ou conjoint de fait. (net
assets) […]
« avoir net » […]
b)
s’agissant d’un entrepreneur, autre qu’un entrepreneur sélectionné par une
province, s’entend de la juste valeur marchande de tous les éléments d’actif
de l’entrepreneur et de son époux ou conjoint de fait, diminuée de la juste
valeur marchande de tous leurs éléments de passif; […] (net worth)
« avoir net minimal » :
a) S’agissant d’un entrepreneur autre qu’un entrepreneur sélectionné par
une province, correspond à la somme de 300 000 $; […] (minimum net worth)
« 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). (entrepreneur) […]
« 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 $. (qualifying business) […]
« équivalent d’emploi à temps plein » Correspond à 1 950 heures d’emploi rémunéré. (full-time job equivalent)
« 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; (business experience) […]
« 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. (percentage of equity) […]
« revenu net » S’agissant d’une
entreprise admissible ou d’une entreprise canadienne admissible, les
bénéfices ou pertes de l’entreprise après impôts, compte tenu de la
rémunération versée par l’entreprise à l’étranger qui demande ou a demandé un
visa de résident permanent et à son époux ou conjoint de fait. (net income) […]
Qualité
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).
Exigences
minimales
(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.
|
Email this Content