Chamma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 29 : Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Establish Intra-Company Transfer Requirements and Provide Truthful Information

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Shahzad Chamma’s intra-company transfer work permit application. Mr. Chamma sought to establish a Canadian affiliate of his Pakistani electronics business and work in Canada as a senior manager without an LMIA. The officer was not satisfied that he met the requirements for an LMIA-exempt intra-company transfer, questioned the evidence connecting him to the Pakistani business, identified credibility concerns, and found that he had failed to answer immigration questions truthfully. The Court concluded that the refusal was reasonable.

Key Principle

An applicant seeking an LMIA-exempt intra-company transfer bears the burden of providing sufficient credible evidence establishing the applicable requirements, including qualifying employment with the foreign enterprise. An officer may refuse where the evidence is inadequate and may independently refuse under subsection 11(1) of the IRPA where the applicant breaches the section 16 duty of candour by providing inaccurate or incomplete information.

Background

Mr. Chamma, a Pakistani citizen, had operated Chamma Electronics Inc. in Pakistan since 1997. A Canadian company was incorporated in November 2016, with Mr. Chamma owning 75 percent of its shares. He proposed investing $100,000 and transferring to Canada for one year as a senior manager to launch the Canadian affiliate.

He applied for an intra-company transfer work permit in January 2017. The officer concluded that the evidence did not adequately establish his senior managerial employment with the Pakistani business or satisfy the applicable intra-company transfer requirements.

The officer also identified credibility concerns. Mr. Chamma failed to disclose a 2002 Canadian TRV refusal, stated that his spouse and children would not accompany him although they were already in Canada, and provided information creating a discrepancy concerning when his father died and when the Pakistani business was transferred to him.

Court Findings

• Applicant Failed to Establish Intra-Company Transfer Eligibility

The Court upheld the officer’s concern that Mr. Chamma had not provided clear and compelling evidence establishing that he was actually employed by and managing the Pakistani business. The applicant bears responsibility for putting forward his best case and supplying sufficient supporting documentation. The officer was entitled to assess whether the requirements for the LMIA-exempt intra-company transfer category were established.

• Credibility Concerns Were Reasonably Considered

The officer reasonably considered inconsistencies concerning Mr. Chamma’s father and the transfer of the business. The discrepancy between his statement that his family would not accompany him and the fact that his spouse and children were already in Canada also supported concerns about the reliability of the information provided.

• Breach of Duty of Candour Independently Supported Refusal

The Court emphasized subsection 16(1) of the IRPA, which requires applicants to answer immigration questions truthfully. Mr. Chamma answered “no” when asked whether he had previously been refused a visa despite his 2002 Canadian TRV refusal. He also failed to accurately describe his family’s circumstances in Canada. The Court held that his failure to comply with the duty of candour was sufficient, by itself, to support refusal under subsection 11(1).

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the officer’s decision fell within the range of acceptable outcomes supported by the facts and law. No serious question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Chamma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 29 (CanLII)