Ottawa, Ontario, January 17, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen
BETWEEN:
and
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a visa officer’s decision dated November 18, 2005 refusing the applicant’s application for permanent residence as a Québec investor on the grounds that the visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant is not inadmissible to Canada. The applicant is a businessman in China, and the visa officer is based in Hong Kong.
Background
The applicant’s application under the Quebec investor category
[2] The applicant, Mr. Wei Biao Chen, is a citizen and resident of China. In June 2002, he applied to the Province of Québec for a nomination under the Québec investor category. After attending an interview with the Service d’immigration du Québec (the Service), he received a letter from the Service advising that he did not meet the definition of the investor class under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations). The Service advised the applicant that the letter would be considered a refusal unless he submitting the following documentation to the Service within 60 days:
An explanation from an accountant in relation to the amounts of 3.7 and 2.35 million RMB [renminbi] shown under “Other Payables” and with respect to the revolving fund set up under the chengbao [sub-contract agreement] of 1996.
The applicant submitted the requested information and, on March 29, 2004, the province of Québec issued the applicant a selection certificate.
[3] In conjunction with his application for selection under the Quebec investor category, the applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada under the investor immigrant category. As part of his application, the applicant submitted material regarding his assets in order to prove that he legally obtained a net worth of at least $800,000 in accordance with the Regulations. This material included:
1. a notarized “CHENGBAO” contract (sub-contract agreement) signed between the applicant and Guang Dong You He Trade with Taiwan Trading Company (the Trading Company);
2. a translated copy of the 1996 purchase agreement for the sale of property located at 10th Street Clifford Estate (the Property);
3. a receipt confirming the method, manner and amount of payment for the Property;
4. the applicant’s sworn statement regarding the source of his funds;
5. submissions on behalf of the applicant dated March 30, 2005;
6. various business contracts entered into by the applicant on behalf of the Trading Company;
7. notarized corporate tax receipts;
8. a tax certificate confirming the Trading Company’s payments to the local tax bureau for the period from March 1996 to December 2002;
9. bank statements for the Trading Company issued by the Bank of China for the period from 1999 to 2002;
10. an audit report prepared for the Trading Company for the period from 1996 to 2002;
11. a chart of the Trading Company’s profits and losses for the period from 1996 to 2002; and
12. the Trading Company’s balance sheets for the period from 1996 to 2002.
[4] The applicant attended an interview with a visa officer from the Hong Kong Immigration Section of the Canadian Consulate General on November 17, 2005. By letter dated the next day, the visa officer refused the applicant’s application for permanent residence. The letter stated in part:
Subsections 34 to 42 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 prescribe inadmissible classes of persons to Canada. In order for your application to succeed, you must satisfy me that you meet all the requirements of IRPA and the regulations, including a determination that you are not a member of an inadmissible class of persons described in subsections 34 to 42. Your failure to adequately account for the origins of your net worth makes it impossible for me to complete a comprehensive and proper assessment of admissibility in your case.
Subsection 16(1) of the Act requires that a person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonable requires. You do not meet these requirements because you have not complied with my requests for evidence to satisfy me that your personal net worth was derived from legal and legitimate sources.
Subsection 11(1) of the Act provides that a foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.
Based on the information that is available, I am not satisfied that you are not inadmissible and that you meet the requirements of the Act for the reasons explained above. I am therefore not authorized to issue you a permanent reside visa. Your application is therefore refused.
[Emphasis added]
[5] The visa officer’s concerns about the legality of the source of the applicant’s funds are identified throughout the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes:
1. The visa officer questioned the source of the applicant’s funds with which he purchased the Property in 1996. The visa officer observed that the purchase price was RMB 509,652 and that the applicant earned RMB 421,400 from 1984 to 1996.
2. According to the chengbao sub-contract agreement between the applicant and the Trading Company, the applicant bore responsibility for providing a revolving fund. The visa officer opined that the applicant could not have operated the chengbao without start-up funds.
3. The applicant previously stated to the Bureau d’immigration du Québec that the revolving fund for the chengbao came from the applicant’s own savings and from credit extended to him by a Hong Kong supplier.
4. It was not feasible for the applicant to make a substantial payment towards the purchase price of the Property while operating a chengbao which required start-up funds.
5. The purchase contracts submitted by the applicant did not contain accurate telephone numbers and listings for the contracting companies. In fact, three of these contracts were found by the respondent to be fraudulent.
Issues
[6] This application for judicial review raises the following issues:
1. Did the visa officer breach the duty of fairness by denying the applicant an opportunity to know and respond to the case against him?
2. Did the visa officer lack jurisdiction to refuse the applicant’s application in light of the fact that he had been selected as an investor in the business category by the Province of Québec and had not been found inadmissible?
3. Did the visa officer make patently unreasonable findings of fact in refusing the applicant’s application?
Standard of Review
[7] The case law is divided as to the appropriate standard of review applicable to visa officers’ decisions. In some cases, the Court has determined that patent unreasonableness is the appropriate standard: see, e.g., Ushenin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 315; Shi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1224; Hua v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1647. In others, the Court has applied a standard of reasonableness: see, e.g., Shehada v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 11; Shabashkevich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 361; Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 751.
[8] It is necessary to undertake the pragmatic and functional analysis of the appropriate standard of review: Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226. As stated by Linden J.A. in Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404:
¶ 46 …[T]he pragmatic and functional analysis must be undertaken anew by the reviewing Court with respect to each decision of an administrative decision-maker, not merely each general type of decision of a particular decision-maker under a particular provision.
[9] Having regard to the absence of a privative clause or absolute right of appeal, the availability of judicial review upon leave of the Court, a visa officer’s relative expertise in assessing applications for permanent residence visas, the polycentric context within which decisions are made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, and the nature of the decision under review as a question of mixed fact and law, I conclude that the visa officer’s decision on questions of fact is appropriately reviewed on a standard of patent unreasonableness.
[10] With respect to the issue of procedural fairness, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that questions of procedural fairness or natural justice are subject to the correctness standard: Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221 at paragraph 65. If a breach of the duty of fairness is found, the decision must be set aside: see, e.g., Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650 at 665. Questions of law like jurisdiction are also reviewed on a standard of correctness.
Relevant Legislation
[11] The following legislation and inter-provincial agreements govern this application:
1. the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), the relevant excerpts of which are set out in Appendix “A” to these Reasons;
2. An Act Respecting Immigration to Québec, R.S.Q., c. I-0.2, and the Regulation respecting the selection of foreign nationals, c. I-0.2, r.5, which provide for the issuance of selection certificates to qualified immigrants wishing to settle in the Province of Québec. The relevant excerpts of this legislation are set out in Appendix “B” to these Reasons; and
3. the Canada-Québec Accord Relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens, dated February 5, 1991, which assigns responsibility for the selection of qualified immigrants to Québec. The relevant excerpts of this agreement are set out in Appendix “C” to these Reasons.
Analysis
Issue No. 1: Did the visa officer breach the duty of fairness by denying the applicant an opportunity to know and respond to the case against him?
[12] The Hong Kong Immigration Section of the respondent conducted an investigation of the applicant’s Hong Kong clients to confirm their business relationship with the applicant. The verification was specifically with respect to six contracts which the applicant had submitted to verify his business, source of funds and capital. The verification result was that three of the six contracts were flagged with a “FRAUD” warning. This verification report was completed on July 7, 2005.
[13] On cross-examination, the visa officer admitted that the fraud reports were not disclosed to the applicant prior to the interview on November 17, 2005, which was the day before the visa officer’s decision. Moreover, it is clear that not all the fraud reports were discussed at the interview, the applicant was never shown the reports, and the applicant was not given even one day to respond to the verbal rendition by the visa officer of the “verification results” indicating “fraud”.
[14] The duty to act fairly requires the visa officer to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond to any central concern, inconsistency or extrinsic evidence with respect to the application: see Toma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 779, per Pinard J. at paragraph 15. The applicant was not given the opportunity to know that the verification result showed that three of six contracts investigated were found to be coloured with “FRAUD”. The manner in which the visa officer raised this issue at the interview did not provide the applicant with a proper opportunity to know the case against him with respect to important extrinsic evidence against his application, or a proper opportunity to respond.
[15] In Shi, above, Justice Snider considered a similar fact scenario at paragraphs 20 and 21 where the respondent sent a “fairness letter” to a Chinese applicant for immigration to Canada as an Investor in the Business Category selected by the Province of Québec:
¶ 20 In a fairness letter dated October 5, 2004, the visa officer advised Mr. Shi of the fraudulent certificate and allowed him 30 days to respond. The relevant portion of that letter reads as follows:
Following a review of your application for permanent residence in Canada, our office made telephone inquiries to verify tax documentation provided in support of your application. The verification uncovered serious discrepancies in the information submitted with your application and these call into question the authenticity of your accumulation of your personal net wealth.
Specifically, our office discovered that the tax document purported to be issued by the Shenyang Local Tax Bureau Helping Branch is fraudulent …
The result of the verification suggests that you have submitted a false document. Misrepresentation such as this may result in the refusal of your application.
¶ 21 In response to this letter, Mr. Shi denied that the certificate was not genuine and produced photo copies of tax receipts which, when added, corresponded to the 2000 total tax paid on the certificate in question.
[16] In the case at bar, the visa officer did not send Mr. Chen any “fairness letter” giving him knowledge of the findings of fraud against him, or a proper opportunity to respond. This is an obvious breach of the duty of fairness owed to the applicant, and warrants the intervention of the Court on this basis alone. For this reason, the Court will:
1. allow this application;
2. set aside the decision of the visa officer;
3. expect Mr. Chen to respond to the results of the fraud verification report by sending the Hong Kong visa office more information to prove the legitimacy of those contracts and to better explain the legitimacy of his source of funds; and
4. expect a different visa officer to then redetermine the application for a visa in a reasonably expeditious manner having regard to the delays experienced on this file.
[17] Accordingly, the Court does not need to consider the other two issues raised by the applicant. However, in obiter, I will briefly express my opinion on these other two issues for the benefit of the parties.
Issue No. 2: Did the visa officer lack jurisdiction to refuse the applicant’s application in light of the fact that he had been selected as an investor in the business category by the Province of Québec and had not been found inadmissible?
[18] Paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Act provides that the applicant shall be granted permanent resident status because he met the Québec selection criteria as an investor immigration unless found inadmissible. The visa officer did not find the applicant inadmissible; rather, the visa officer said he could not be “satisfied that the applicant is not inadmissible”. This is not a finding that the applicant is inadmissible. If the visa officer concluded that Mr. Chen was not truthfully answering questions about his source of funds as required under section 16 of the Act, the visa officer could have found Mr. Chen inadmissible under sections 40 or 41 of the Act. He did not do so, and did not have the jurisdiction to deny a permanent resident visa to Mr. Chen under paragraph 9(1)(a) of the Act.
Issue No. 3: Did the visa officer make patently unreasonable findings of fact in refusing the applicant’s application?
[19] The visa officer clearly misunderstood the evidence before the Québec immigration officer and erroneously found that there was a contradiction in Mr. Chen’s evidence about his initial working capital. Since the visa officer relied upon this misunderstanding to find that Mr. Chen could not have had the working capital in 1996 required under the chengbao contract or the capital to buy a house in 1996, this misunderstanding resulted in a patently unreasonable finding of fact.
Costs
[20] At the hearing, the applicant sought for the first time legal costs under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22.
[21] The Rule for immigration judicial review applications is that no costs shall be awarded to or against any party unless the court so orders for “special reasons”. In this case, the respondent has acted in good faith without any undue delay. The applicant knew the legitimacy of his funds (C$800,000) was an important issue. The applicant should have presented his source of funds in a manner which clearly shows they are legitimate. The applicant did not do so, and now, as a result of his Federal Court case, he has a second chance. However, I do not think the respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes special reasons for awarding costs.
Certified Question
[22] The Court is satisfied that this case does not raise a serious issue of general importance which ought to be certified with respect to procedural fairness. The determinative issue concerning procedural fairness is obvious and not of general importance. The other two issues, being obiter, are not determinative.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. The application for judicial review is allowed;
2. The visa officer’s decision dated November 18, 2005 refusing the applicant’s application for permanent residence is set aside and remitted for reconsideration by a different visa officer after the applicant has submitted additional information to respond to the results of the fraud verification and any other information which the applicant wishes to submit to verify the legitimacy of his funds (i.e. C$800,000).
Appendix “A”
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
|
8. (1) The Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may enter into an agreement with the government of any province for the purposes of this Act. The Minister must publish, once a year, a list of the federal-provincial agreements that are in force. Consistency with agreement (2) Subject to subsection (3) but despite the other provisions of this Act, the following must be consistent with the federal-provincial agreements: (a) the selection and sponsorship of, and the acquisition of status by, foreign nationals under this Act; and (b) regulations governing those matters, including regulations respecting the examination in Canada of applications to become a permanent resident, or respecting the foreign nationals who may be selected on the basis of an investment in Canada. Inadmissibility not limited (3) Subsection (2) is not to be interpreted as limiting the application of any provision of this Act concerning inadmissibility to Canada. Sole provincial responsibility — permanent residents 9. (1) Where a province has, under a federal-provincial agreement, sole responsibility for the selection of a foreign national who intends to reside in that province as a permanent resident, the following provisions apply to that foreign national, unless the agreement provides otherwise: (a) the foreign national, unless inadmissible under this Act, shall be granted permanent resident status if the foreign national meets the province’s selection criteria; (b) the foreign national shall not be granted permanent resident status if the foreign national does not meet the province’s selection criteria; (c) the foreign national shall not be granted permanent resident status contrary to the provisions of the law of the province governing the number of foreign nationals who may settle in the province as permanent residents, whether that number is an estimate or a maximum, or governing the distribution of that number among classes of foreign nationals; and (d) conditions imposed in accordance with the law of the province have the same force and effect as if they were made under this Act, if they are imposed on a foreign national on or before the grant of permanent resident status. […] Application before entering Canada 11. (1) A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. If sponsor does not meet requirements (2) The officer may not issue a visa or other document to a foreign national whose sponsor does not meet the sponsorship requirements of this Act. […] Obligation — answer truthfully 16. (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires. Obligation — relevant evidence
(2) In the case of a foreign national, (a) the relevant evidence referred to in subsection (1) includes photographic and fingerprint evidence; and (b) the foreign national must submit to a medical examination on request.
(3) An officer may require or obtain from a permanent resident or a foreign national who is arrested, detained or subject to a removal order, any evidence — photographic, fingerprint or otherwise — that may be used to establish their identity or compliance with this Act. […]
33. The facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur. […] 36. […] (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence; (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament; (c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or (d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations. […] Misrepresentation 40. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act; (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation; (c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow the claim for refugee protection by the permanent resident or the foreign national; or (d) on ceasing to be a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of that Act.
(2) The following provisions govern subsection (1): (a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of two years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1) or, in the case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced; and (b) paragraph (1)(b) does not apply unless the Minister is satisfied that the facts of the case justify the inadmissibility. 41. A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act (a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act; and (b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection 27(2) or section 28.
|
8. (1) Pour l’application de la présente loi, le ministre peut, avec l’agrément du gouverneur en conseil, conclure un accord avec une province; il publie chaque année la liste des accords en vigueur. Conformité (2) Malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi, doivent être conformes à l’accord : a) la sélection et le parrainage des étrangers, ainsi que l’acquisition d’un statut, sous le régime de la présente loi; b) les règlements régissant ces matières, et notamment tout règlement concernant l’examen au Canada de certaines demandes pour devenir résident permanent ou concernant des étrangers dont la sélection est faite sur la base de placements au Canada. Précision : interdictions de territoire (3) Le paragraphe (2) n’a toutefois pas pour effet de limiter l’application des dispositions de la présente loi visant les interdictions de territoire. Responsabilité provinciale exclusive : résidents permanents 9. (1) Lorsqu’une province a, sous le régime d’un accord, la responsabilité exclusive de sélection de l’étranger qui cherche à s’y établir comme résident permanent, les règles suivantes s’appliquent à celui-ci sauf stipulation contraire de l’accord : a) le statut de résident permanent est octroyé à l’étranger qui répond aux critères de sélection de la province et n’est pas interdit de territoire; b) le statut de résident permanent ne peut être octroyé à l’étranger qui ne répond pas aux critères de sélection de la province; c) le statut de résident permanent ne peut être octroyé contrairement aux dispositions de la législation de la province régissant le nombre — qu’il s’agisse d’estimations ou de plafonds — des étrangers qui peuvent s’y établir comme résidents permanents, ainsi que leur répartition par catégorie; d) les conditions imposées à l’étranger, avant ou à l’octroi du statut de résident permanent, en vertu de la législation de la province ont le même effet que celles prévues sous le régime de la présente loi. Visa et documents 11. (1) L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les visa et autres documents requis par règlement, lesquels sont délivrés sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, qu’il n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi. Cas de la demande parrainée (2) Ils ne peuvent être délivrés à l’étranger dont le répondant ne se conforme pas aux exigences applicables au parrainage. […] 33. Les faits — actes ou omissions — mentionnés aux articles 34 à 37 sont, sauf disposition contraire, appréciés sur la base de motifs raisonnables de croire qu’ils sont survenus, surviennent ou peuvent survenir. […] Obligation du demandeur 16. (1) L’auteur d’une demande au titre de la présente loi doit répondre véridiquement aux questions qui lui sont posées lors du contrôle, donner les renseignements et tous éléments de preuve pertinents et présenter les visa et documents requis. Éléments de preuve
(2) S’agissant de l’étranger, les éléments de preuve pertinents visent notamment la photographie et la dactyloscopie et il est tenu de se soumettre, sur demande, à une visite médicale.
Établissement de l’identité
(3) L’agent peut exiger ou obtenir du résident permanent ou de l’étranger qui fait l’objet d’une arrestation, d’une mise en détention, d’un contrôle ou d’une mesure de renvoi tous éléments, dont la photographie et la dactyloscopie, en vue d’établir son identité et vérifier s’il se conforme à la présente loi. […] Criminalité 36. […] (2) Emportent, sauf pour le résident permanent, interdiction de territoire pour criminalité les faits suivants : a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions à toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits; b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions à des lois fédérales; c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation; d) commettre, à son entrée au Canada, une infraction qui constitue une infraction à une loi fédérale précisée par règlement. […] Fausses déclarations 40. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour fausses déclarations les faits suivants : a) directement ou indirectement, faire une présentation erronée sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou une réticence sur ce fait, ce qui entraîne ou risque d’entraîner une erreur dans l’application de la présente loi; b) être ou avoir été parrainé par un répondant dont il a été statué qu’il est interdit de territoire pour fausses déclarations; c) l’annulation en dernier ressort de la décision ayant accueilli la demande d’asile; d) la perte de la citoyenneté au titre de l’alinéa 10(1)a) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté dans le cas visé au paragraphe 10(2) de cette loi. Application
(2) Les dispositions suivantes s’appliquent au paragraphe (1) : a) l’interdiction de territoire court pour les deux ans suivant la décision la constatant en dernier ressort, si le résident permanent ou l’étranger n’est pas au pays, ou suivant l’exécution de la mesure de renvoi; b) l’alinéa (1)b) ne s’applique que si le ministre est convaincu que les faits en cause justifient l’interdiction. Manquement à la loi 41. S’agissant de l’étranger, emportent interdiction de territoire pour manquement à la présente loi tout fait — acte ou omission — commis directement ou indirectement en contravention avec la présente loi et, s’agissant du résident permanent, le manquement à l’obligation de résidence et aux conditions imposées.
|
Appendix “B”
1. An Act respecting immigration to Québec, R.S.Q., c. I-0.2 [as of March 29, 2004]
|
Application for permanent residence.
3.1. A foreign national wishing to settle permanently in Québec must, except for the classes and in the cases prescribed by regulation, file an application for a selection certificate with the Minister of Relations with the Citizens and Immigration in accordance with the procedure prescribed under paragraph f of section 3.3.
Process.
The Minister shall process the application, having regard to the annual immigration plan and to the order of priorities prescribed by regulation.
Selection certificate.
The Minister shall issue a selection certificate to the foreign national who meets the conditions and criteria of selection determined by regulation.
Suspension of examination.
The Minister shall suspend the examination of applications or cease to issue selection certificates for or within a class until the beginning of the following calendar year if the maximum set out in the annual plan has been reached. The Minister may, for or within a class, suspend the examination of applications or cease to issue selection certificates until the beginning of the following calendar year if the Minister considers that the maximum number or estimate set out in the annual plan will be reached.
Selection certificate.
Notwithstanding the third or fourth paragraph, the Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, issue a selection certificate to a foreign national in a particularly distressful situation, in particular, in the case of Convention refugees as defined in the Immigration Act (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, chapter I-2), or in any other case where the Minister considers that the results obtained following the application of the selection criteria do not reflect whether or not the foreign national will be able to become successfully established in Québec. Conversely, the Minister may refuse to issue such a certificate to a foreign national who meets the conditions and criteria of selection if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national does not intend to settle in Québec or is unlikely to settle successfully in Québec or that the settlement of the foreign national would be contrary to public interest.
|
Ressortissant étranger permanent.
3.1. Un ressortissant étranger désirant s'établir à titre permanent au Québec doit, sauf pour les catégories ou dans les cas prévus par règlement, présenter une demande de certificat de sélection au ministre des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration conformément à la procédure visée au paragraphe f de l'article 3.3.
Demande examinée.
Le ministre examine la demande en tenant compte du plan annuel d'immigration et de l'ordre des priorités fixé par règlement.
Certificat de sélection.
Le ministre délivre un certificat de sélection au ressortissant étranger qui satisfait aux conditions et critères de sélection déterminés par règlement.
Atteinte du maximum.
Le ministre suspend l'examen des demandes ou cesse de délivrer des certificats de sélection pour une catégorie ou à l'intérieur d'une même catégorie jusqu'au début de l'année civile suivante, si le maximum prévu au plan annuel est atteint. Il peut, pour une catégorie ou à l'intérieur d'une même catégorie, suspendre l'examen des demandes ou cesser la délivrance des certificats de sélection jusqu'au début de l'année civile suivante, s'il est d'avis que le maximum ou l'estimation prévu au plan annuel sera atteint.
Certificat de sélection.
Malgré le troisième ou le quatrième alinéa, le ministre peut, conformément au règlement, délivrer un certificat de sélection à un ressortissant étranger qui est dans une situation particulière de détresse, notamment dans le cas de réfugiés au sens de la Convention, tels que définis dans la Loi sur l'immigration (Lois révisées du Canada (1985), chapitre I-2), ou dans tout autre cas où le ministre juge que le résultat obtenu, à la suite de l'application des critères de sélection, ne reflète pas les possibilités de ce ressortissant étranger de s'établir avec succès au Québec. À l'inverse, le ministre peut refuser de délivrer un tel certificat à celui qui satisfait aux conditions et critères de sélection s'il a des motifs raisonnables de croire que le ressortissant étranger n'a pas l'intention de s'établir au Québec, n'a que peu de possibilités de s'y établir avec succès ou dont l'établissement irait à l'encontre de l'intérêt public.
|
2. Regulation respecting the selection of foreign nationals, c. I-0.2, r.5 [as of March 29, 2004]
|
2. Procedure for obtaining a selection and acceptance certificate
2. The application for a selection certificate referred to in section 3.1 of the Act is filed with the Minister by a foreign national for himself and for his family members whether or not they accompany him ; the application for a certificate of acceptance referred to in section 3.2 of the Act is filed with the Minister by a foreign national for himself and for his accompanying family members.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the application for a selection certificate filed in Québec in a class referred to in sections 110 to 115 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations or in sections 25 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act may not consider the foreign national's family members who are not in Canada, except if they are already covered by an undertaking subscribed to under section 23.
It may also be made in their name by a person having the right to act on their behalf when the foreign national does not have the legal capacity to do so. Furthermore, in the case of a foreign national belonging to the class of independent immigrants, the application for a selection certificate is filed by the said foreign national, or if he so wishes, by his spouse or de facto spouse.
3. Any foreign national wishing to settle permanently in Québec must hold a selection certificate issued by the Minister under section 3.1 of the Act.
The application shall be made on the form provided by the Minister.
[…]
6. The Minister decides to which class the foreign national applying for a selection certificate belongs.
[…]
8. Any foreign national belonging to the investors class shall be called for an interview, as well as any national in the class of persons in distress, excluding nationals referred to in paragraph a of section 18 and, if a meeting is not possible while their records contain the information necessary for making a decision, nationals referred to in paragraphs b and c of that section.
Nationals referred to in section 7 shall be called for an interview if they meet the requirements of the preliminary processing but fail to achieve the passing or cutoff scores, or whose application contains declarations the truthfulness of which is not demonstrated.
The notice of interview shall indicate the place and date of the interview and the documents that the national must submit in support of his application.
9. The foreign national who makes an application for a selection certificate or certificate of acceptance must answer the questions of an immigration officer and produce the documents that the said officer demands for the purposes of determining whether he meets the requirements of this Regulation.
10. The sponsor must answer the questions of an immigration officer and produce the documents that the said officer demands for the purposes of determining whether he meets the requirements of this Regulation.
11. The foreign national or the sponsor must provide evidence of each fact submitted in support of his application for a selection certificate or certificate of acceptance or his application for an undertaking.
[…]
15. The foreign national is advised of the acceptance or the rejection of his application for a selection or acceptance certificate within a period of 60 days after the decision.
The selection certificate issued following the acceptance of the application is valid for 3 years from the date of its issue. Where a new selection certificate is issued immediately following the expiry of the previous selection certificate, it is valid for 12 months, if the conditions in effect at the time of the issue of the previous selection certificate continue to be met.
The certificate of acceptance of a foreign national coming to Québec to study is valid from the beginning of his studies for a period equal to the duration of the program or of the level of study referred to in section 47. The certificate is valid for a period of not more than 36 months. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a minor child, the period of validity of his certificate is the same as that of the certificate of acceptance or the work permit issued by the Canadian authorities to his father, mother or another person holding parental authority whom he accompanies, or, failing that, is 14 months.
The certificate of acceptance of a foreign national coming to Québec to work is valid from the beginning of his period of work for a period equal to the duration of an offer of employment that satisfies subsections 1 and 3 of section 50. The certificate is issued for a duration of not more than 36 months. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a foreign national who has an offer of employment in an occupation where the level of qualification for such an occupation within the meaning of the National Occupational Classification is less than «B», the period of validity of his certificate is not more than, 14 months.
The certificate of acceptance issued to a foreign national coming to Québec to receive medical treatment is valid from the beginning of his medical treatment for the expected duration of the treatment.
A selection certificate or a certificate of acceptance is valid until a foreign national is authorized to be present in Canada or to enter Canada under a temporary resident permit referred to in section 24 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, even if the foreign national is inadmissible under the Act.
[…] § 3. Classes of foreign nationals wishing to settle permanently in Québec
17. For the purposes of an application for a selection certificate, the foreign national who wishes to settle permanently in Québec belongs to one of the 3 following classes:
(a) class of foreign nationals who are in a particularly distressful situation;
(b) family class; or
(c) class of independent immigrants.
[…]
21. The class of independent immigrants includes a foreign national at least 18 years of age who: […]
(d) is designated as an «investor» if:
(i) he has at least 3 years of experience in management:
- in a farming, commercial or industrial business that is profitable and legal;
- for a government or one of its departments or agencies;
- for an international agency;
(ii) he has net assets of at least 800 000 $ that he has accumulated through legal economic activities;
(iii) he comes to settle and to invest in Québec in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation;
[…]
38. The Minister shall issue a selection certificate to a foreign national belonging to the class of independent immigrants if the foreign national is awarded, in the awarding of the points prescribed in the Regulation respecting weighting for his class in respect of the factors and criteria of the Selection Grid for Independent Immigrants in Schedule A, the number of points required as a cutoff score, where applicable, and as a passing score.
Furthermore, an investor shall also file with the Minister a document proving that the amount mentioned in the investment agreement has been transferred to his broker or his trust company in Québec.
|
§ 2. Procédure d'obtention d'un certificat de sélection et d'acceptation
2. La demande de certificat de sélection visée à l'article 3.1 de la Loi est présentée au ministre par un ressortissant étranger pour lui-même et pour les membres de sa famille qui l'accompagnent ou non ; la demande de certificat d'acceptation visée à l'article 3.2 de la Loi est présentée au ministre par un ressortissant étranger pour lui-même et les membres de sa famille qui l'accompagnent.
Cependant la demande de certificat de sélection présentée au Québec dans une catégorie visée aux articles 110 à 115 du Règlement sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés ou aux articles 25 et 97 de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés ne peut viser les membres de sa famille qui ne sont pas au Canada, sauf s'ils sont déjà visés par un engagement souscrit en vertu de l'article 23.
Elle peut aussi être faite en leur nom par une personne ayant le droit d'agir pour eux lorsque le ressortissant étranger n'a pas la capacité légale. De plus, dans le cas d'un ressortissant étranger appartenant à la catégorie des immigrants indépendants, la demande de certificat de sélection est présentée par ce ressortissant étranger, ou à son choix, par son époux ou conjoint de fait.
3. Tout ressortissant étranger désirant s'établir à titre permanent au Québec doit être détenteur d'un certificat de sélection délivré par le ministre en vertu de l'article 3.1 de la Loi.
La demande est présentée sur le formulaire fourni par le ministre.
[…]
6. Le ministre détermine à quelle catégorie de ressortissants étrangers appartient celui qui demande un certificat de sélection.
[…]
8. Tout ressortissant étranger de la catégorie des investisseurs est convoqué en entrevue, ainsi que tout ressortissant de la catégorie des personnes en situation de détresse, à l'exception du ressortissant visé au paragraphe a de l'article 18 et, dans le cas où le ressortissant ne peut être rencontré alors que son dossier contient les renseignements nécessaires à la prise de décision, du ressortissant visé aux paragraphes b et c de cet article .
Quant au ressortissant visé à l'article 7, est convoqué en entrevue celui qui, tout en satisfaisant aux exigences de l'examen préliminaire, n'atteint pas les seuils de passage de sélection ou éliminatoires, ou dont la demande contient des déclarations dont la véracité n'est pas démontrée.
L'avis de convocation indique le lieu et la date de l'entrevue ainsi que les documents que le ressortissant doit présenter à l'appui de sa demande.
9. Le ressortissant étranger qui présente une demande de certificat de sélection ou de certificat d'acceptation doit répondre aux questions d'un fonctionnaire à l'immigration et produire les documents que ce fonctionnaire réclame aux fins d'établir qu'il répond aux exigences du présent règlement.
10. Le garant doit répondre aux questions d'un fonctionnaire à l'immigration et produire les documents que ce fonctionnaire réclame aux fins d'établir qu'il répond aux exigences du présent règlement.
11. Le ressortissant étranger, ou le garant, doit fournir la preuve de tout fait à l'appui de sa demande de certificat de sélection, de certificat d'acceptation ou de sa demande d'engagement.
[…]
15. Le ressortissant étranger est avisé de l'acceptation ou du refus de sa demande de certificat de sélection ou d'acceptation dans un délai de 60 jours à compter de cette décision.
Le certificat de sélection délivré à la suite de l'acceptation de la demande est valide, à compter de la date de sa délivrance, pour une durée de 3 ans. À l'expiration de la durée de validité d'un certificat de sélection, un nouveau certificat peut être délivré pour une durée de 12 mois si les conditions ayant prévalu lors de sa délivrance sont toujours respectées.
Le certificat d'acceptation du ressortissant étranger qui vient étudier au Québec est valide, à compter du début des études, pour une durée équivalente à la durée du programme ou à celle du niveau d'études visé à l'article 47. Ce certificat est délivré pour une durée d'au plus 36 mois. Toutefois, dans le cas de l'enfant mineur, la durée de son certificat est la même que celle du certificat d'acceptation ou du permis de travail délivré par les autorités canadiennes de son père, de sa mère ou d'une autre personne titulaire de l'autorité parentale qu'il accompagne ou, à défaut, de 14 mois.
Le certificat d'acceptation du ressortissant étranger qui vient travailler au Québec est valide, à compter du début de la période de travail, pour une durée équivalente à celle de l'offre d'emploi qui satisfait aux paragraphes 1 et 3 de l'article 50. Ce certificat est délivré pour une durée d'au plus 36 mois. Toutefois, dans le cas d'un ressortissant étranger qui a une offre d'emploi dans une profession où le niveau de compétence, au sens de la Classification nationale des professions, est inférieur à «B», la durée de son certificat est d'au plus 14 mois.
Le certificat d'acceptation délivré au ressortissant étranger qui vient recevoir au Québec un traitement médical est valide, à compter du début du traitement médical, pour la durée prévue de ce traitement.
Un certificat de sélection ou un certificat d'acceptation est valide tant que le ressortissant étranger est autorisé à être présent au Canada ou à y entrer en vertu d'un permis de séjour temporaire visé à l'article 24 de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, même s'il est interdit de territoire en vertu de cette loi.
[…]
§ 3. Catégories de ressortissants étrangers désirant s'établir à titre permanent au Québec
17. Aux fins d'une demande de certificat de sélection, le ressortissant étranger qui désire s'établir à titre permanent au Québec appartient à l'une des 3 catégories suivantes:
a) catégorie des ressortissants étrangers qui sont dans une situation particulière de détresse;
b) catégorie du regroupement familial ;
c) catégorie des immigrants indépendants.
[…]
21. La catégorie des immigrants indépendants comprend un ressortissant étranger âgé d'au moins 18 ans: […]
d) qui est désigné «investisseur» s'il:
i. a une expérience en gestion d'au moins 3 ans:
- dans une entreprise agricole, commerciale ou industrielle, rentable et licite;
- pour un gouvernement, l'un de ses ministères ou organismes;
- pour un organisme international;
ii. dispose d'un avoir net d'au moins 800 000 $ qu'il a accumulé par des activités économiques licites;
iii. vient s'établir au Québec et y investir conformément aux dispositions du présent règlement;
[…]
38. Le ministre délivre un certificat de sélection à un ressortissant étranger de la catégorie des immigrants indépendants si celui-ci obtient, lors de l'attribution des points prévus au Règlement sur la pondération pour sa sous-catégorie en regard des facteurs et critères de la Grille de sélection des immigrants indépendants prévue à l'Annexe A, le nombre de points requis comme seuil éliminatoire, le cas échéant, et comme seuil de passage.
En outre, l'investisseur doit aussi déposer auprès du ministre un document attestant le transfert auprès de son courtier ou de sa société de fiducie au Québec du montant mentionné dans la convention d'investissement.
|
Appendix “C”
Canada - Québec Accord Relating to Immigration and
Temporary Admission of Aliens
February 5, 1991
|
Immigrants
12. Subject to sections 13 to 20, a. Québec has sole responsibility for the selection of immigrants destined to that province and Canada has sole responsibility for the admission of immigrants to that province. b. Canada shall admit any immigrant destined to Québec who meets Québec’s selection criteria, if the immigrant is not in an inadmissible class under the law of Canada. c. Canada shall not admit any immigrant into Québec who does not meet Québec’s selection criteria.
|
Les immigrants
12. Sous réserve des articles 13 à 20 : a. Le Québec est seul responsable de la sélection des immigrants à destination de cette province et le Canada est seul responsable de l'admission des immigrants dans cette province. b. Le Canada doit admettre tout immigrant à destination du Québec qui satisfait aux critères de sélection du Québec, si cet immigrant n'appartient pas à une catégorie inadmissible selon la loi fédérale. c. Le Canada n'admet pas au Québec un immigrant qui ne satisfait pas aux critères de sélection du Québec.
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-152-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: WEI BIAO CHEN v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: January 9, 2007
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Michael Greene Ms. Jolene M. Fairbrother
|
|
|
Mr. Brad Hardstaff
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Sherritt Greene Calgary, Alberta
|
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General for Canada
|