Mohitian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1393 : Self-Employed Application Refusal Overturned Because of Contradictory Reasons and Undisclosed Business Plan Concerns

Outcome: Judicial Review Allowed

Ø  Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of an Iranian businessman’s permanent residence application under the self-employed category.

He intended to purchase a farm in Saskatchewan, but the officer questioned his experience, available funds, and the feasibility of his proposed farming activities.

The Court overturned the refusal because the reasons contradicted the officer’s own notes and the applicant had not received a fair opportunity to address concerns about his business plan.

Ø  Key Principle

An immigration decision must contain clear and consistent reasons that allow the applicant and the Court to understand why the application was refused.

In the circumstances of this case, procedural fairness also required the officer to disclose specific concerns about the applicant’s proposed business activities before refusing the application.

The Court distinguished evidence of a realistic self-employment proposal from a formal business plan, which the legislation did not require.

Ø  Background

Mr. Mohitian was an Iranian citizen with ownership and management experience in a silver gallery, a citrus orchard, and a walnut orchard.

After visiting Canada with his wife in 2007, he applied for permanent residence that November, intending to purchase an existing farm in Saskatchewan.

His application remained pending for nearly seven years before the embassy requested updated forms and supporting documents in February 2015.

He submitted the requested information in March 2015, identifying approximately $2.2 million in net worth and $800,000 in intended settlement funds.

The officer refused the application later that month, citing insufficient research into farmland costs, supplies, expected income, and the proposed farm’s feasibility.

The refusal letter also stated that he lacked relevant experience, although the officer’s internal notes expressly accepted that he met that requirement.

Ø  Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the conflicting conclusions about relevant experience made the decision unintelligible and unreasonable.

The internal notes accepted Mr. Mohitian’s experience, while the refusal letter issued five days later stated the opposite and questioned his skills.

This contradiction alone justified returning the application for reconsideration.

The Court rejected an affidavit from another immigration official attempting to correct the refusal letter by characterizing part of it as a typographical error and removing an entire phrase.

That official had neither written the notes nor issued the refusal letter. He also failed to identify the source of information concerning the reasons for refusal.

The affidavit did not fall within the recognized exceptions permitting new evidence on judicial review and raised more questions than it answered.

The Court separately found that the officer had treated Mr. Mohitian unfairly concerning his business proposal.

The detailed request for updated documents had not asked him to submit a business plan. He was also not interviewed before the refusal.

The Court noted that the legislation did not require a formal business plan and that the operational guidance discouraged imposing unnecessary expense and administrative burden through such a requirement.

Although officers could request evidence of research and a realistic plan for self-employment, the applicant should have been alerted to the specific concerns in this case.

An interview was not necessarily required, but a procedural fairness letter would have provided an opportunity to respond.

The lengthy processing delay, followed by the relatively prompt refusal after updated documents were submitted, reinforced the Court’s conclusion.

Ø  Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal, and returned the matter to a different visa officer for redetermination. No serious question of general importance was certified, and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Mohitian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1393 CanLII