- Jul 1, 2024
- 2 min read
In this case, the applicant applied to the Federal Court for a judicial review against the visa officer for rejecting his C11 work permit (IMP enterprise/self-employed work permit, LMIA exemption code C11, legal basis IRPR205(a)-Canadian interests).
Case Background:
Applicant: Esmaeil Talebali, Iranian citizen, engaged in poultry production and processing
Application: Planning to operate a poultry production and processing business in Cobourg, Ontario, applying for a work permit as a business/self-employed person under the International Mobility Program (LMIA exemption code C11, legal basis IRPR205(a)-Canadian interests)
Reason for Rejection: The visa officer believes that the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to prove that he/she meets the exemption requirements of C11-Canadian Benefits Class. Specifically, the visa officer believes that
1. The business plan is too general and does not reflect real needs or business benefits;
2. The applicant's planned business is highly competitive in the Ontario market and will not provide significant economic, social or cultural benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents;
3. A large part of the business plan is very general and consists of information copied from the Internet.
The applicant believes that:
1. The business plan has shown that the competition in Cobourg, where the company is going to be established, is not fierce. If the visa officer raises an objection, he should substantiate his point of view. Although the visa officer does not need to give detailed reasons when making a decision, if the evidence provided by the applicant is contrary to the visa officer's point of view, a reasonable explanation is required, otherwise it lacks transparency and logic ;
2. The information cited from the Internet in the business plan is used for market analysis. This information supports the feasibility of the business plan and does not make the business plan too general.
Court decision:
Review standard: Reasonableness review, that is, when the court evaluates the rationality of an administrative decision, it should abide by the professional judgment of the decision maker and intervene only when necessary to ensure the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative procedure.
Result: The court held that the visa officer’s decision was unreasonable. The visa officer failed to explain why he ignored the evidence submitted by the applicant that was contrary to the immigration officer’s conclusion . Specifically,
1. The visa officer considered that the business plan was too general and relied on public information on the Internet, and questioned the rationality of its economic forecasts and the actual competitive situation, but failed to specify the basis for these evaluations.
2. The visa officer’s reasons lack transparency and logic, and fail to reflect a reasonable analysis process.