Date: 19980212
Docket: IMM-956-97
BETWEEN:
MIN TAO LIU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
GIBSON, J.:
[1] These reasons arise out of an application for judicial review of a decision of a visa officer at Beijing, People's Republic of China ("PRC"), wherein the visa officer refused the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada. The decision is dated the 13th of January, 1997.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of the PRC. She applied for an immigrant visa to Canada under the self-employed guidelines. At the heart of those guidelines is the definition "self-employed person" in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 19781 which reads as follows:
| "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; |
[3] According to the documentary evidence that was before the visa officer, the applicant has extensive experience in the PRC as a versatile actress on stage, in films, and on television. To a lesser extent, the evidence before the visa officer disclosed that the applicant also has experience in modelling and as a drama teacher.
[4] The visa officer determined that the applicant did not meet the definition of a self-employed person. In her decision letter, the visa officer wrote:
| When asked what you would do if you went to Canada, you stated that you wanted to be a model and learn English. You also stated that your lawyer had encouraged you to continue to pursue the cultural aspects of your career, and that two film companies had contacted you. When asked how you could make a movie in Canada without English or French language abilities, you replied that you could not be an actress without a working knowledge of one of Canada's official languages. This was confirmed at two later points in the interview. |
| At a later point in the interview, I again asked what your intentions would be if you were to go to Canada. You stated that you would be a model. When asked if you had any intention to work as an actress, you replied that if one of the two film companies approached by your contact in Canada were to approach you to play a role in Chinese, then you would do so. You did not know anything about whether or not there was a market in Canada for a Chinese speaking actress, even though this issue had been raised at your previous interview. |
| You therefore have not satisfied me that you have the intention to create an employment opportunity for yourself as an actress. By your own admission, you would not be able to do so until you were able to speak English or French. In the absence of any information to the contrary, I am forced to agree with your own assessment of your ability to support yourself as an actress in Canada. |
| In addition, you have not satisfied me that you have an intention to establish a business that would create an employment opportunity for yourself. At a number of points in the interview, you stated an intention to support yourself in Canada with modelling contracts. You produced an exclusive services contract with the Canadian office of Ching Chew-An Group whereby you are to be paid CAD 18,000 per year for five years for your services. The contract went on to require you to obtain prior written consent from the Ching Chew-An Group if any other company is to use your name, your voice, or your likeness in any manner or for any purpose. I have found that this contract creates what is essentially an exclusive employer/employee relationship. I have also found this to be the most accurate expression of your future intention as it supports in writing what you expressed verbally at your interview. |
| On your Application for Permanent Residence in Canada you stated that you intended to be a business consultant and drama teacher in Canada. Although at no time during your interview did you state an intention to work as a business consultant, you did state at one point in your interview that you would start a dancing and drama school in Canada. This intention was stated well into the interview, and only in response to a direct, leading question. In every other instance when you were asked - by means of an open question - what you intended to do in Canada, you stated that you would be a model. When asked to describe your plans with respect to establishing a drama school, you claimed that you would start with ten students, and hopefully increase the numbers after that. You did not have any plans for how to get students, how to teach those who did not speak Chinese, or how you would support yourself by teaching only 10 students. Moreover, you have not demonstrated that you have the experience or ability to teach drama. Based upon the information provided at your interview, you have not satisfied me that you have the intention to establish a drama school in Canada. |
[5] Counsel for the applicant ably argued that the visa officer's decision in respect of the applicant's intention and ability to become an actress in Canada, to be a self-employed model and to establish and operate a dancing and drama school was simply perverse. Further, counsel argued that the interpretation of the service contract between the applicant and the Ching Chew-An Group that was adopted by the visa officer was simply incorrect.
[6] With regret, I cannot agree with the positions of counsel for the applicant. The applicant failed to present an effective business plan. The visa officer's computer notes of her interview with the applicant disclose that the applicant's plans for becoming self-employed here in Canada on her arrival were vague in the extreme in respect of her intention and ability in Canada. Nothing was provided from the Chinese-Canadian community to indicate the contribution that the applicant could make to the Canadian cultural scene as an actress and as a dancing and drama teacher. Nothing of significance was provided from those in the PRC who are familiar with her talents that spoke to her experience and accomplishments as a teacher or, indeed, as a model. Such evidence could only have been helpful to the applicant.
[7] In the result, I conclude that this application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[8] That being said, intuitively, on the basis of the material that was before the visa officer, it is not difficult to conceive that the applicant is likely capable of making a significant contribution to the cultural and artistic life of Canada. What appears to be lacking in the applicant's application to come to Canada as a self-employed immigrant is a degree of organization, a plan, of documentation of her accomplishments in the People's Republic of China and of the views of those in the cultural and artistic community in Canada with whom the applicant could reasonably be expected to relate, as to the place for a person such as the applicant in the Canadian community and the contribution that she could be capable of making. If I am to any extent correct in my intuitive assessment of the contribution that the applicant could make here in Canada, I would only hope that, with appropriate advice and guidance, the applicant might again apply to come to Canada, with the application based on reasoned research and a more carefully organized and documented dossier.
"Frederick E. Gibson"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
February 12, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980212
Docket: IMM-956-97
BETWEEN:
MIN TAO LIU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-956-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MIN TAO LIU |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 11, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: GIBSON, J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 12, 1998
APPEARANCES: Ms. Shoshana T. Green
For the Applicant
Mr. Stephen Gold
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ms. Shoshana T. Green |
Barristers and Solicitors
121 King Street West
Suite 2200, P.O. Box 114
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3T9
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
__________________