Date: 20000526
Docket: IMM-2116-99
Between :
| JIAN JIN LI |
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of Gregory Chubak, a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in Hong Kong, dated March 24, 1999, refusing his application for permanent residence in Canada on the grounds that he does not meet the requirements of the self-employed category.
[2] According to the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172:
| "self-employed person" means an immigrant who intends and has the ability to establish or purchase a business in Canada that will create an employment opportunity for himself and will make a significant contribution to the economy or the cultural or artistic life of Canada; |
"travailleur autonome" s'entend d'un immigrant qui a l'intention et qui est en mesure d'établir ou d'acheter une entreprise au Canada, de façon à créer un emploi pour lui-même et à contribuer de manière significative à la vie économique, culturelle ou artistique du Canada; |
[3] Discretionary decisions of visa officers with respect to immigrant applications command deference. In Chiu Chee To v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (May 22, 1996), A-172-93, the Federal Court of Appeal adopted the standard set out by the Supreme Court of Canada at pages 7 and 8 of Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2:
| . . . It is, as well, a clearly-established rule that the courts should not interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a statutory authority merely because the court might have exercised the discretion in a different manner had it been charged with that responsibility. Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere. . . . |
[4] Here, the applicant sought to enter Canada as a self-employed sculpture teacher, sculptor and commercial artist. He claims that the visa officer erred in placing undue emphasis on his preparation to come to Canada in his chosen profession.
[5] The visa officer indicated in his computer notes that there is no doubt that the applicant is "a competent sculptor and commercial artist of some local repute", but also noted in his decision that the applicant did not research settlement or study the feasibility of working in a self-employed capacity in Canada. He further commented that the applicant's lack of English would greatly hinder any efforts to establish or purchase a business in Canada. The computer notes indicate that the applicant has not determined in the "loosest possible sense what the market is for his skills or planned venture[s] in Vancouver". Moreover, the applicant did not identify any galleries or other means of selling his art. The computer notes further indicate that the applicant made no attempt to upgrade his English in the three years after deciding to emigrate to Canada. The applicant had also not made any contingency plans.
[6] Finally, the visa officer evaluated the applicant's ability to be self-employed. In his decision, he stated that the applicant's experience and success to date had largely been as an employee, that the applicant was unable to explain how he planned to apply this experience to the self-employed context and that in the company he had established with his sister, his sister took responsibility for marketing, management and administration. In the computer notes, the visa officer commented that the applicant has a lack of demonstrated business skills, experience and acumen.
[7] In light of all of the above, I am not satisfied that the visa officer made any reviewable errors in arriving at his conclusion. In particular, the applicant's argument that the visa officer placed undue emphasis on his lack of preparation to come to Canada is not persuasive. In my opinion, the decision and the computer notes indicate that the applicant's preparation was only one of a variety of factors considered by the visa officer.
[8] In addition, the visa officer stated several times in his decision that he was not convinced that the applicant's business would make a significant contribution to the economy or the cultural or artistic life of Canada. This conclusion was not based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations, but rather on the applicant's inability to demonstrate that he could establish his intended business in Canada.
[9] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 26, 2000