Date: 20030728
Docket: IMM-2845-02
Citation: 2003 FC 925
BETWEEN:
NGAN CHUNG CHIANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[1] The applicant, a citizen of China with a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport, applied in Hong Kong in 1999 for permanent residence in Canada within the investor class. He made application in accord with the arrangements under the Canada-Quebec investor program.
[2] In September 2000 he was advised by Quebec authorities that he met the selection criteria for immigration as an investor. In May 2002 he was convened to an interview in Hong Kong by Canadian immigration authorities concerning his admissibility to Canada. Both of those steps for approval were in accord with the federal-provincial agreement.
[3] At the interview, the visa officer concerned asked about the sources of revenue to explain his assets as stated in the completed form he submitted when he applied and in an up-dated report completed at the time of the interview. In the former statement he declared his net worth to be approximately $1,250,000 and he indicated that a source of some of his assets was his service as an officer or director of some unspecified overseas companies. In the later statement no reference was made to overseas companies, although supporting Hong Kong income tax documents indicated his annual income from employment there at some $65,000 on average over the previous three years. He later says by his affidavit that the income reported was without reference to overseas or investment sources of earnings which were not taxable in Hong Kong. The later statement also include an error in his calculation of net worth at a total of about $2,000,000, which sum erroneously included some $400,000 he had borrowed for investment in Canada. That error the applicant himself did not notice until after the May 2002 interview.
[4] At the interview the visa officer asked about the sources of revenue for his net worth, noting an increase, which she did not specify, since his statement in 1999. Ultimately, the officer advised the applicant that she was not persuaded that he should be admitted to Canada, absent his explanation of the sources of his assets, and absent any prior indication of his involvement and revenue from overseas companies, mainly in the shipping industry, which he specified for the first time at the interview.
[5] In this judicial review of the visa officer's negative decision, it was argued that the visa officer's authority related only to inadmissibility of the applicant, since he had already been advised he had met the selection criteria for the investor programme, and that the officer's concern about sources of his assets arose not from his case, but from other cases where Chinese authorities had indicated prospective immigrants had wrongly amassed their assets.
[6] In cross-examination the officer admitted that the latter had been a factor which led to her questioning sources of Mr. Chiang's funds. From this it was urged for the applicant that the officer's concern was with criminal inadmissibility of the applicant, that no specific criminal activity was suggested to him, to which he might have responded, to support his statement that he had not been involved in any criminal activity. That, it was urged, was unfair to the applicant.
[7] After consideration of the issues and argument raised by counsel, I am not persuaded the visa officer erred in law, or that her conclusion was unreasonable that the applicant did not meet the obligation under s. 8 of the Act as it then applied, which clearly placed the onus upon the applicant of satisfying the officer that he was admissible to Canada.
[8] The visa officer was not limited to questions about any specific criminal activity of the applicant unless a specific activity were to become a basis for his rejection. She did not ask irrelevant questions in inquiring about the sources of his assets (see Biao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 338, 2001 F.C.A. 43 (C.A.) affirming [2000] 2 F.C. 348, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1679 (T.D.)). It is true that in Biao the visa officer concerned had not only asked questions but also had requested documents to support claimed revenue sources and there no documents were produced. In this case no particular documents were requested and not supplied, but here the decision was not based on any failure to produce documents, rather it was based on failure to reply satisfactorily at the interview on questions concerning revenue sources.
[9] Finally, I am not persuaded that the officer was to be expected to correct the applicant's own error in over-estimating his net worth in the statement he submitted in 2002. The error was that of the applicant. The visa officer could not reasonably be expected to check the manner in which the applicant calculated his own net worth.
[10] In my opinion, the applicant has failed to establish a basis for intervention by the Court. An Order goes dismissing the application for judicial review.
"W. Andrew MacKay"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
July 28, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2845-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: NGAN CHUNG CHIANG
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: Wednesday, July 23, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER OF MacKAY J.
APPEARANCES:
Kyle C. Hyndman
FOR APPLICANT
Pauline Anthoine
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
McCrea & Associates
102 - 1012 Beach Avenue
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6E 1T7
FOR APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR RESPONDENT