Ming v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Ming v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-05-13 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 225 File numbers A-502-02 Decision Content Date: 20030513 Docket: A-502-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 225 CORAM: STONE J.A. EVANS J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: LAU TING MING, STEPHEN Appellant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 13, 2003. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 13, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: EVANS J.A. Date: 20030513 Docket: A-502-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 225 CORAM: STONE J.A. EVANS J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: LAU TING MING, STEPHEN Appellant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on May 13, 2003) EVANS J.A. [1] This is an appeal by Stephen Lau Ting Ming from a decision of Rothstein J.A., sitting as a Judge of the Trial Division ex-officio, in which he dismissed an application for judicial review of a refusal by a visa officer to issue a visa to Mr. Lau. The decision is reported as Lau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 F.C.T. 870. [2] Mr. Lau, a 59 year-old citizen of Hong Kong and a resident of the United States, applied for a visa to enter Canada as a permanent resident in the independent category. His application was assessed on the basis that he was a retired person with assets of approximately one million US dollars, the members of whose known family live in Canada. Because the visa officer awarded Mr. Lau no points for the occupational factor, he could not be issued a visa: Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/72-172, subsection 11(2). [3] Mr. Lau contends that the visa officer ought to have exercised his positive discretion pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Regulations, on the ground that his ability to support himself in Canada from his savings, without having recourse to public funds, demonstrates that Mr. Lau would be able successfully to establish himself in Canada, even tough he was awarded less than the number of points normally required to be granted a visa. [4] The Applications Judge held that if visa officers' discretion under subsection 11(3) applied to retirees it would effectively undermine the legislative purpose underlying the removal in 1991 of retirees from the category of independent immigrants who may be issued a permanent residence visa. We agree with the Application Judge's reasons for decision and would adopt them as our own, particularly the following (paras 9-10): ... To the extent Strayer J. [in Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1991] 3 F.C. 350 at 360] may have been referring to retirees who had the ability "to be economically sustained other than by the State", his words must now be read having regard to the change to the Regulations. I do not think they can be read today as being referable to retired persons whose only economic criterion is an ability to support themselves from personal savings. Indeed, the scheme of the selection criteria in subsection 8(1) of the Regulations provides for the opportunity to work, to be self-employed, to invest or to be an entrepreneur. The words "the chances of the particular immigrant and his dependents of becoming successfully established in Canada", as those words are used in subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 necessarily implies one of the selection categories provided for in subsection 8(1). There is no provision for a retiree class of immigrant as such in subsection 8(1), whether or not they are able to support themselves from personal savings. [5] We were not persuaded by counsel's argument that Rothstein J.A.'s interpretation of the scheme of the Regulations after the 1991 amendments is inconsistent with the general provisions of section 3 and subsection 6(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2. [6] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed without costs, and we would answer in the negative the question certified for appeal, which was as follows: Do the words "the chances of the particular immigrant and his dependants of becoming successfully established in Canada" in subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 include retirees whose only economic criterion is having sufficient assets to sustain themselves? "John M. Evans" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-502-02 STYLE OF CAUSE: LAU TING MING, STEPHEN Appellant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent DATE OF HEARING: MAY 13, 2003 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A. DATED: MAY 13, 2003 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Cecil L. Rotenberg For the Appellant Ms. Ann-Margaret Oberst Mr. Jamie Todd For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Cecil L. Rotenberg Barristers & Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For the Appellant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent