Will Liquidating Assets for a Business Diminish Ties to Your Home Country?

Starting a business in Canada is a dream for many global entrepreneurs. But this dream often hinges on a delicate balancing act that can feel like a classic catch-22. To secure a work permit as an entrepreneur or intra-company transferee, you must prove your Canadian venture is financially viable. This often means committing significant capital, sometimes by selling assets in your home country. However, the very act of liquidating assets can be interpreted by an immigration officer as severing the strong ties to your home country-the same ties required to prove you will leave Canada if your temporary stay ends. This creates a challenging paradox: proving you can afford to come to Canada might be seen as proof you don’t intend to leave.

This is not just a theoretical problem; it’s a real-world hurdle that leads to refused applications and shattered plans. Applicants meticulously craft business plans and gather financial statements, only to be told their commitment to the Canadian business weakens their connection to home. Understanding how immigration officers assess this balance and how the Federal Court of Canada scrutinizes these decisions is crucial for any business applicant. This story explores that very tension through the lens of real court cases, revealing the critical importance of demonstrating financial viability without inadvertently erasing your footprint back home.

When Policy Meets Reality in the Federal Court

For entrepreneurs and business owners, the path to a Canadian work permit is paved with detailed requirements for financial solvency and a credible business plan. The expectation is clear: you must demonstrate that your proposed Canadian entity has the resources to get off the ground, operate, and provide a significant benefit to Canada. However, when applicants pour their life savings or company resources into this venture, they can find themselves in a precarious position. Federal Court decisions show us exactly where this tightrope walk can go wrong.

The Double-Edged Sword of Financial Commitment

The story of an applicant in Sabeti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 98 provides a stark illustration of this challenge. A 25-year-old Iranian citizen sought a work permit as an intra-company transferee to establish a Canadian subsidiary. The immigration officer refused the application, concluding that the applicant had not proven sufficient financial viability for the new Canadian company. The Federal Court upheld this decision, finding it reasonable. The core issue was not just about funding the Canadian operation, but doing so while ensuring the parent company in Iran remained stable.

As a result, the officer was not satisfied that the applicant and Zarbaft had demonstrated that they had the financial means to commence doing business in Canada (including compensating employees) while also maintaining the business in Iran. On the information before the officer, this was a reasonable conclusion. (at para 11)

In Sabeti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 98, the judge's focus was on the reasonableness of the officer's conclusion. The applicant's business plan lacked a detailed breakdown of funding, and the officer conducted their own due diligence, finding estimated expenses like rent to be unrealistic. The case underscores a critical lesson: the financial plan must be comprehensive enough to demonstrate that the Canadian venture's funding does not cripple the home-country enterprise. Liquidating too many assets can signal that the parent company is being hollowed out, which not only questions its viability but also weakens the applicant's primary tie to their home country.

Expert insight: Applicants must provide clear financial plans showing viability for both the Canadian subsidiary and the parent company. A detailed funding breakdown is essential, and the business plan must be realistic and well-researched. The ultimate goal is showing a significant economic benefit, and a financially weak plan fails this test.

The Burden of Proving a Viable Business

Similarly, the need for a robust and convincing business plan was central in other cases where work permits were refused. In Naghashyar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 85, an entrepreneur's application under the International Mobility Program was refused because the officer found the business plan unsound, particularly regarding proposed salaries and market competitiveness. The applicant argued that the program didn't have specific wage requirements, but the Court sided with the officer. The Court's role, it clarified, is not to re-weigh the evidence or evaluate the business plan's sufficiency, but to assess if the officer's decision was reasonable based on the record.

It is not the role of a Court on Judicial Review to evaluate the sufficiency of the business plan, because to do so would involve re-weighing the evidence. That role is assigned by Parliament to the Officer... (at para 15)

In Naghashyar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 85, the judge affirmed the officer’s discretion. This highlights that even without explicit rules on every detail, the overall viability and benefit to Canada are paramount. If funding the proposed salaries seems unrealistic, it undermines the entire business case. This forces applicants to prove their financial projections are not just optimistic guesses but are grounded in market reality.

This theme continued in Sayekan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 97, where a calligrapher's application for permanent residence as a self-employed person was refused. The officer didn't doubt his artistic skill but was unconvinced he could establish a viable business in Canada due to a lack of market research and a coherent plan.

The Officer reasonably concluded that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate Mr. Sayekan had undertaken the necessary market research or developed a coherent and credible plan to establish himself as a self-employed person in Canada. (at para 17)

These cases, brought to the Federal Court through the process of Judicial Review, consistently show that the burden of proof is squarely on the applicant. You must present a case so compelling and well-documented that the officer can clearly see a path to success in Canada, funded by resources that do not simultaneously suggest an abandonment of your home country.

Key Lessons

• Balance is Everything: Your application must demonstrate that you can fund your Canadian business without gutting your financial and business ties to your home country. Show that the parent company remains strong and viable.
• Detail Your Financial Plan: Do not rely on high-level summaries. Provide a detailed breakdown of funding sources, realistic financial projections based on Canadian market research, and concrete evidence of available capital.
• The Business Plan is Your Foundation: Your business plan is not a formality. It will be scrutinized for realism, market understanding, and its potential to bring a 'significant benefit' to Canada. Weaknesses in the plan can and will lead to refusal.
• Onus of Proof is on You: The immigration officer is not there to build your case. It is your responsibility to provide a complete, convincing, and well-supported application that anticipates and addresses potential concerns about viability and ties to home.
• Judicial Review is about Reasonableness, Not Re-evaluation: The Federal Court will not re-weigh your business plan's merits. It will only assess whether the officer's decision was transparent, intelligible, and based on the evidence before them. Your best shot is getting it right the first time.

Navigating the complex demands of a business immigration application requires careful strategic planning. The fear that you might liquidate additional assets for the business will diminish ties to his home country is a valid one, but it can be overcome. By meticulously documenting your continued connections, providing a robust and realistic financial strategy, and building a compelling business case, you can demonstrate both your commitment to succeeding in Canada and your unwavering ties to home. Seeking expert legal guidance can be invaluable in striking this critical balance.