Canadian court rejects rich migrants’ compensation claim over defunct visa scheme
Federal judge kicks out case by 1,500 applicants trying to force Canada to process visa applications under the repealed Immigrant Investor Programme or pay millions in compensation

Canada’s Federal Court has slapped down a bid by about 1,500 rich would-be immigrants, most of them Chinese millionaires, to force the government to process their visa applications under the defunct Immigrant Investor Programme, or pay them C$5 million (HK$36 million) each.
In a strongly worded ruling, Justice Mary Gleason said “would-be immigrants have no right to force the Minister [of immigration] to set any particular quota for any economic [immigration] class. This determination is in keeping with long-established principles, which hold that no one possesses a right to immigrate”.
The ruling was dated Monday, but only made public on Thursday. Its release came one week after the controversial Immigrant Investor Programme (IIP) was formally shut down, with the passage of legislation in Canada’s parliament. The applications of about 60,000 would-be immigrants – about 80 per cent of whom were mainland Chinese who filed their applications in Hong Kong – have now been formally scrapped.
The announcement in February that the IIP was being axed triggered the lawsuit, which was organised by Toronto immigration lawyer Tim Leahy. Leahy had asked the court to order that his clients’ applications be processed, or that each be paid C$5 million in compensation.
Would-be immigrants have no right to force the Minister [of immigration] to set any particular quota for any economic [immigration] class
Leahy had argued that his clients’ applications were unreasonably delayed by the way Canada handled a massive backlog in the IIP, that was created when tens of thousands of rich Chinese swamped the Hong Kong consular office with applications before the scheme was frozen in 2012. Ottawa had decided that new applications would be processed concurrently with old ones, but Leahy said this was unfair, and a “first-come, first-served” approach would have seen his clients admitted to Canada before the scheme was axed.
Leahy also argued that the intake for the scheme should have been increased.