Is it a must that I own assets, to convince the Canada immigration officer that I will leave at the end of my visit to Canada?
10including some details about your country of citizenship might be helpful– Kate GregoryMar 25 at 17:26
It depends very heavily on your country of origin and (probably) the type of visum. As a German citizen, I only needed an ETA and the border guard basically waved us through without asking any questions other than "business or pleasure" at all.– arneMar 27 at 6:38
There is no single thing that will ensure you are admitted to visit, and no single thing whose absence will ensure you are not. The officers look at a bunch of things to see if, overall, it's believable that you are just visiting and will go home afterwards.
If you have assets in your home country, that might persuade some officers you will return. Someone needs to look after your home, your business, your car, you would never walk away from all that. But it's not as simple as a checkbox. They look at the overall ties: job, family, education in progress, and so on as well as what you own and what would happen to those things if you didn't go home again.
I know people who have been admitted as visitors to Canada with no assets outside Canada. And I know people who have been refused when they had substantial assets. So, it's not a "must" but it may help as part of the overall picture of your ties to your home country and how much of a temptation it might be to just stay instead of going home.
1"no single thing whose absence will ensure you are not" - I'd say there are plenty of single things whose absence will ensure that you are not admitted.– DavorMar 27 at 8:46
1you can say that, but you're not right. People get admitted with no cash, with no return ticket, all kinds of things. There are some things, like a criminal background, where the presence of one single thing means you are excluded, but that's not what I wrote. Mar 27 at 11:39
@KateGregory This is getting very tangential, but I am confused by your comment since you literally (and I don't mean figuratively...) wrote "there is ... no single thing whose absence will ensure you are not". The comment disagrees by pointing out that there exist such things. Obviously your answer is great and useful. But it seems the comment is pointing out a logically correct if arguably not terribly important point. I'd say your hyperbole is useful and unlikely to be taken literally. But still the comment is useful just in case. Mar 27 at 16:47
There's no ambiguity. The comment is wrong. Davor asserts there are plenty of "single things who absence will ensure you are not admitted." I say, in my answer and my response "no there aren't." The comment is not logically correct because it's not correct. I do literally and precisely mean that you can't name anything that "oh, you don't have X? You can't visit." Davor disagrees, which is fine, but Davor isn't magically and automatically right and my statement isn't hyperbole, it's accurate. Mar 27 at 16:59
@KateGregory - I am yet to see anyone get admitted without a valid passport or a visa where one is needed :D– DavorMar 29 at 14:25
No, it is not a general requirement, many people who don’t own any property or other tangible assets in their own country get visas from many different countries (including Canada) every day.
However, this will depend a lot on your situation. If you have other evidence that shows a good reason to go back (a stable, well paid job, studies to continue…), it may not be necessary. If you don’t have such evidence, or there are other reasons which may make them think you have a strong incentive to stay in Canada (a partner or family in Canada for instance), then owning property back home may be a good way to prove you have “strong ties” to your home country and every reason to go back.
Each situation is specific and there is no magic formula. You need to convince them somehow that you have more reasons to go back than to stay. How you do that may vary a lot.
Short an actual immigration officer willing to share an answer, we can only make assumptions here. Mine is that a country ends up with a number of overstay/deportation/crime cases each year, and the immigration service is trying to find rules which could have prevented these people from coming to the country in the first place by refusing their visas. Those rules are then applied next year, and the cycle repeats.
The basic process for establishing such rules could be to calculate a correlation between each piece of data from the visa application and the fact that the visa applicant has broken immigration rules or not. If they notice that people with assets have close to zero chance of overstay, they will weight proof of assets more heavily. If they realize that previous Easter Island visitors tend to commit violent crimes during their stay, they may refuse you a visa if you've had a visa of Chile in your travel history, even if you own assets, etc.
There is no single factor on your visa application that guarantees you will get a visa, and the weight of such factors changes with the geopolitical situation of the country in question.