Date: 19980127
Docket: IMM-562-97
BETWEEN:
VLADIMIRAS ROZENKOVICIUS
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Tuesday, January 27, 1998, as edited.)
REED, J.:
[1] Despite the able and very articulate argument of counsel for the applicant, I do not think this is a case in which there are grounds to set aside the visa officer's decision. The errors that are alleged, in my view, are matters of judgment within the visa officer's discretion.
[2] With respect to the argument that the visa officer applied the wrong test, I am not persuaded that when one looks at the refusal letter, in the context of the CAIPS notes and the file as a whole, that this occurred.
[3] The visa officer was aware that part of the test the applicant had to meet, when applying under either the self-employed or entrepreneur category, was that his proposed business activity in Canada would make a "significant contribution to the Canadian economy". While the visa officer commented on the fact that, in his view, if the applicant's business plans were successful, they would likely only result in an existing leather goods retail merchant being put out of business, this was not central to his decision. I could not conclude that the visa officer was going so far as to say that a significant contribution to the Canadian economy means that a proposed business activity cannot have the result of putting competitors out of business.
[4] The visa officer assessed the evidence, including, for example, the nature of the proposed business, (a leather goods shop), the applicant's lack of knowledge of the Canadian market, the applicant's lack of facility in English, and concluded that it was unlikely that a significant contribution to the economy would occur as a result of what was proposed. The visa officer's comments about putting an existing merchant out of business may have seemed over-emphasized, particularly, in the eyes of the applicant. They were not, however, central to the visa officer's decision. Also that concern is not completely irrelevant to the assessment of "significant contribution to the Canadian economy".
[5] With respect to the assessment that the applicant lacks knowledge of the Canadian market, this conclusion is not inappropriate by reference to the material on the file. It would not be unreasonable for a person who planned to enter the Canadian market, to have some awareness, or to have made some investigation about why his potential competitors purchased from various sources (not why any prospective competitor did so, but, in general terms, how that particular market operated).
[6] Also, I am not persuaded that there was an error made by the visa officer in evaluating the applicant's Lithuanian experience. The refusal letter describes accurately the applicant's evidence that he operated a rental space in a large department store and owned a stall in a flea market. The conclusion that this was limited experience, in the context of a proposed move into the Canadian market, is a matter of opinion within the visa officer's discretion to make.
[7] For the reasons given, I cannot grant the order that is sought.
"B. Reed"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
January 27, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980127
Docket: IMM-562-97
BETWEEN:
VLADIMIRAS ROZENKOVICIUS
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-562-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: VLADIMIRAS ROZENKOVICIUS
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 27, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED, J.
DATED: JANUARY 27, 1998
Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, January 27, 1998, as edited.)
APPEARANCES: Ms. Shoshana T. Green
For the Applicant
Mr. David Tyndale
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ms. Shoshana T. Green
GREEN AND SPIEGEL
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