Raja v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 719 : Entrepreneur Work Permit Refusal Upheld Where Business Plan Lacked Significant Benefit Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Afzal Raja’s entrepreneur work permit application under the International Mobility Program. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, relying on concerns about the proposed restaurant business, ownership evidence, and travel history. The Court found the decision reasonable and rejected the applicant’s procedural fairness arguments.

Key Principle

An entrepreneur work permit applicant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence that the proposed business offers the required significant benefit and that the applicant will leave Canada when authorized status ends. An officer may reasonably scrutinize the viability of the business plan, projected revenues, competition, operating costs, physical premises, and ownership structure. Minor factual errors will not invalidate an otherwise reasonable decision where they are not central to the outcome.

Background

The applicant was a 67-year-old Iranian citizen who had owned and managed a restaurant in Iran for approximately 30 years. He incorporated a business in Ontario and proposed opening a Pakistani restaurant in Georgina, hiring seven full-time employees, and later returning to Iran. He submitted bank records, a business plan, incorporation documents, and share ownership materials in support of the application.

Court Findings

• Business Viability Concerns Were Reasonably Open to the Officer

The officer questioned the proposed restaurant’s high sales projections in light of significant competition, overhead, payroll expenses, and the relatively small community in which the business would operate. The Court held that these were relevant considerations when assessing whether the proposed business justified the requested work permit.

• Buyer Representation Agreement Did Not Establish a Secured Location

The applicant argued that the officer overlooked evidence showing efforts to obtain commercial premises. The Court found no contradiction between the buyer representation agreement and the officer’s finding that no physical location had actually been secured. The agreement demonstrated a search for premises, not an existing location.

• Ownership Error Was Minor and Non-Determinative

The officer incorrectly stated that the applicant was not listed as a director in the articles of incorporation. However, the Court found it remained reasonable to conclude that the evidence did not permit a clear assessment of the applicant’s percentage share ownership. Because the refusal did not depend solely on this factual mistake, the error did not undermine the decision as a whole.

• Use of Chinook Did Not Establish Procedural Unfairness

The applicant argued that IRCC’s use of the Chinook processing tool prevented a proper individualized assessment. The Court rejected this argument because there was no evidence connecting use of the tool to any omitted consideration, unfair procedure, or failure to assess the application.

• Delayed Reasons and Processing Time Did Not Breach Fairness

The Court found no procedural unfairness arising from the later provision of GCMS notes following a Rule 9 request. It also rejected the argument that an eight-month processing period breached a legitimate expectation of two-week processing, particularly because IRCC had expressly warned that processing delays were possible.

• Bias Allegation Was Unsupported

The applicant’s disagreement with the officer’s treatment of travel history did not establish reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court emphasized that such an allegation requires substantial evidence and cannot rest on speculation or disagreement with the outcome.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the entrepreneur work permit refusal both reasonable and procedurally fair. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Raja v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 719 (CanLII)