Date: 19981112
Docket: T-2449-97
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
- and -
PIK YEUNG LUK
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
BLAIS J.:
[1] This is an appeal by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration from the decision of the citizenship judge, dated September 15, 1997 wherein the judge approved the application of Pik Yeung Luk for a grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act.
[2] The applicant first came to Canada on December 10, 1993 and acquired the status of a permanent resident on the same day. She applied for Canadian citizenship on December 24, 1996.
[3] The decision of the citizenship judge is:
| |
Despite the resident's shortage of 598 days with respect to the meeting of the minimum resident's requirement, the respondent provided proof, within the Thurlow framework, of both the establishment and maintenance of a Canadian centrality of motive leaving consistent with the pattern of full time educational persons. |
|
[4] The appeal of the Minister is based on the ground that during the four years preceding the date of application for citizenship, the respondent did not satisfy the resident's requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act.
[5] The respondent has brought some clarification in her testimony; shortly after she first came to Canada on December 10, 1993, she left nine days later to Taiwan to complete the degree of Bachelor of Arts in the National Central University of Taiwan.
[6] Looking at the transcript of academic record, we see that she started her university studies in 1991, so in December 1993 she has already completed two and half years out of four years to get her Bachelor of Arts in Chinese Literature.
[7] She came back to Canada during the summer vacation in August and September 1994 and when she finally graduated in July 1995, she came back to Canada where she was already established with her mother and brothers living in Canada.
[8] She went back to Hong Kong one month to visit her grandmother after her father had passed away.
[9] As soon as she got back home, she started a continuing education program at the Langstaff School for Adult Education by registering in English Courses. After that, she also improved her skills with courses at the York Dale Secondary School taking courses in computers. And finally, she registered at the Seneca College in Ontario.
[10] When the respondent was studying in Taiwan, she was leaving in a dormitory because of her family has moved to Canada. Her parents also paid for her education in Taiwan and in Canada.
[11] As stated by Justice Rouleau in Chan, T-1981-96 (1997) at paragraph 12:
| |
The jurisprudence in this Court with respect to students seems to suggests that if one most be satisfied that the appellant has remained a dependent of his parents in Canada, that they paid for his education, that he returned here during the summer and other types of holidays, that it was always his intention to return to this country. This appellant complies with these conditions. He always intended to return; his motives were unchallenged and his residence should not be considered having been interrupted. he is now looking for work in Canada and, effectively, he has no other residence or home to go to except this country. Along with the amicus curiae's concurrence, I allow this appeal. |
|
[12] The appellant's counsel suggested the respondent had never established in Canada before she came back in the summer of 1995.
[13] I disagree with this opinion because we all know that when you are a student and you are completing your Bachelor's Degree far away from home (approximately 14 hours by plane), you cannot get back home every weekend. However, your belongings are in your room at home in Toronto, your address is there, your brothers are there, your mother is there, you come back during the summer break, and as soon as you graduate, you return home to Canada. This means you have really established your mode of living in Canada.
[14] It seems obvious that the only reason for the respondent's absence from Canada was to complete her Bachelor of Arts Degree in Taiwan of which she had already completed two- thirds prior to coming to Canada. I am convinced that the respondent has centralized her mode of leaving in Canada and I see no reason to set aside the decision made by the citizens judge.
[15] For those reasons, the appeal made by the appellant should be dismissed.
"Pierre Blais"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
November 12, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: T-2449-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29 |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the decision of a Citizenship Judge |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Appellant
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| AND JUDGMENT BY: BLAIS J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1998
APPEARANCES:
For the Respondent
Mr. Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19981103
Docket: T-1746-97
Between:
| IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29 |
| AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the decision of a Citizenship Judge |
Appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Email this Content