Ghanbari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1880 : Intra-Company Transferee Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Incorrectly Found No Evidence of a Canadian Bank Account

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Bahram Ghanbari’s work permit application under the Intra-Company Transferee category and the subsequent refusal of his reconsideration request. The Iranian applicant sought to establish the Canadian affiliate of his landscaping business. The officer questioned whether the proposed Canadian company was financially viable and stated that no evidence of a Canadian bank account had been submitted. The Court granted judicial review because the record contained a Canadian corporate bank statement showing approximately $57,000, directly contradicting a central finding in the refusal.

Key Principle

A work permit refusal is unreasonable where the officer’s assessment of a proposed business’s financial viability is based on the incorrect finding that material financial evidence was not provided. When the record contains a Canadian corporate bank account with a significant balance, the officer must consider that evidence and explain how it affects the assessment of startup funding. The Court cannot speculate about what weight the officer might have given evidence that was apparently overlooked.

Background

The applicant was the Chief Executive Officer of an Iranian landscaping company. He applied for a three-year work permit to assist in establishing its Canadian affiliate under the Intra-Company Transferee category.

The Canadian and Iranian companies were affiliated through common ownership and control.

The business plan estimated approximately $200,000 in startup costs. The application included evidence of a Canadian bank account in the name of the Canadian company with a balance of approximately $57,000.

The initial application was refused because the officer was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements for an intra-company transferee in a managerial or executive capacity.

The reconsideration request was also refused because the officer found that no new information had been submitted.

Court Findings

• Initial Refusal Was Properly Before the Court
The Court held that although the judicial review formally challenged the reconsideration decision, it also clearly placed the underlying refusal in issue. The Court therefore assessed the reasonableness of the initial refusal rather than limiting its review to the reconsideration decision.

• Canadian Bank Account Evidence Was Overlooked
The Court found that the officer incorrectly stated that no evidence of a Canadian bank account had been provided. This finding was directly contradicted by the record, which contained a Canadian corporate bank statement submitted with the application.

• Financial Evidence Was Material
The Court held that the approximately $57,000 balance in the Canadian corporate bank account represented a significant portion of the projected $200,000 startup costs. Because the officer’s assessment focused on the financial viability of the Canadian business, this evidence was central and required meaningful consideration.

• Corporate Ownership Did Not Diminish Its Relevance
The Court rejected the argument that the bank account was irrelevant because it belonged to the Canadian company rather than the applicant personally. Since the officer was assessing the startup’s overall financial capacity, the company’s available funds were directly relevant to that assessment.

• Court Could Not Reweigh the Evidence
The Court emphasized that it was not its role to determine what weight the Canadian bank account should receive. Once it was established that the officer had overlooked material evidence, the appropriate remedy was to set aside the refusal and return the application for redetermination by a different officer.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside both the initial refusal and the reconsideration refusal, and returned the application to a different visa officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Ghanbari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1880 (CanLII)