The following excerpt is from Martirossian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1119 (CanLII):
The facts in Hao v. MCI, [2000] F.C.J. No. 2013 (F.C.T.D.), are likewise similar to those in the case at bar, since the applicant had made his application for permanent residence in the "investor" class, but had not presented sufficient evidence to enable the visa officer to draw a favourable conclusion. Pinard J. stated: In my view, the visa officer's contention was proper and he denied the visa on appropriate grounds, namely, that in the absence of the documentation he had requested, he was unable to verify the admissibility of the applicant with respect to section 19 of the Act.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.