Yu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Yu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-08-15
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 869
File numbers
IMM-6623-00
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20020815
Docket: IMM-6623-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 869
BETWEEN:
CHANG QUAN YU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN J.A. (ex officio)
[1] This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer denying the applicant's application
for a permanent resident visa in the entrepreneur category. The applicant proposed to go into the grocery business in Toronto. The visa officer's reasons for refusal were:
1. The applicant's lack of English leading to difficulty conducting business in Canada.
2. The applicant's over-reliance on his sister as an interpreter, as his source for suppliers and as a business partner, which spoke poorly of his entrepreneurial skills and called into question his ability to establish a business in Canada.
3. The applicant's lack of research into his business plan.
4. The visa officer's uncertainty as to whether the applicant had skills to establish a business.
[2] The applicant says that the visa officer's approach was too narrow and ignored the
applicant's extensive business experience in China. He says his reliance on his sister and her ability to assist him should not have been a negative consideration. Finally, he says many immigrants who do not speak English or French have been able to establish successful businesses in Canada.
[3] The visa officer took account of the applicant's experience as an engineer in construction
project management but was not convinced it was sufficient to operate a supermarket in the Toronto market. The visa officer also found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of his business experience in China to conclude that he contributed to the successful establishment of a business there. These were relevant considerations and the conclusions reached by the visa officer cannot be said to be unreasonable.
[4] As to the applicant's "over-reliance" on his sister, I would agree with the applicant that the presence of his sister in Canada and her willingness and ability to assist him are generally positive considerations. However, they have to be considered in context. When it appeared to the visa officer that the applicant had no experience in his proposed venture and had, at best, only a rudimentary business plan, it was not unreasonable for the visa officer to consider whether the applicant had the entrepreneurial ability to establish the business he proposed. In that context, if the applicant's emphasis in asserting that he had the required entrepreneurial ability was his reliance on his sister, it was not unreasonable for the visa officer to have considered that such reliance was "over-reliance", and that the applicant's ability to establish a successful business was called into question.
[5] The applicant places heavy reliance on this Court's decision in Cheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 13 Imm. L.R. (3d) 28 (F.C.T.D.). I am not satisfied that reliance on Cheng, supra, is apt. In Cheng, supra, the visa officer appears not to have considered the applicant's past record in the same business he proposed to operate in Canada - a restaurant business. In the present case, the applicant's lack of experience in his proposed business - groceries - was taken into account. In Cheng, supra, the visa officer was apparently satisfied that the applicant had the ability to operate a restaurant. In that context, the fact that the applicant intended to work in a restaurant in Canada, perhaps his sister's, before establishing his own restaurant, was found not to be a valid basis to refuse his application. However, in the present case, it was the applicant's reliance on his sister in the context of his having no prior experience in his proposed business that caused the visa officer to consider this to be "over-reliance". This is not the case of an applicant spending a period of time gaining experience in the Canadian environment for a business in which he already has experience. Rather, it seems that it appeared to the visa officer to be an ongoing reliance on someone else to carry on the applicant's business. For this reason, I do not think Cheng, supra, is of assistance to the applicant.
[6] Finally, I accept that an inability to speak English or French has not prevented other
immigrants from successfully establishing themselves in Canada. However, an inability to speak English or French cannot be said to be an irrelevant consideration. While it may well be that many of the applicant's potential customers or suppliers would speak his language, it would seem obvious that many people with whom the applicant would have to deal would not speak that language. As the visa officer pointed out, a person in business must be able to communicate to suppliers and others.
[7] While another visa officer might have reach a different conclusion on the facts of this case, I cannot say that this visa officer's conclusion was unreasonable.
[8] For these reasons, I would deny the application for judicial review.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
August 15, 2002
Toronto, Ontario
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-6623-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHANG QUAN YU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
DATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Benjamin A. Kranc
For the Applicant
Ms. Deborah Drukarsh
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Kranc & Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
425 University Avenue
Suite 500
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1T6
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:20020815
Docket: IMM-6623-00
BETWEEN:
CHANG QUAN YU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER