Date : 20000214
Docket : T-741-99
BETWEEN:
SEEN TSING SUE LO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Monday, February 14, 2000]
McGILLIS J.
[1] The applicant has appealed from the decision dated March 31, 1999 of the citizenship judge that she did not meet the residency requirements in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 as amended.
[2] In his decision, the citizenship judge stated, in part, as follows:
| You landed with your parents on November 7, 1992 in Halifax. Less than one month later (on December 5, 1992), after settling your parents in Halifax, you returned to Hong Kong. There you continued your medical studies, which you begun [sic] before landing (on July 1, 1991). You graduated on November 11, 1995. Upon graduation, you returned to Canada, married a doctor (a non-Canadian citizen). You moved to Edmonton to study and your husband worked. Eventually, you moved your parents to Toronto, purchased a house jointly with your mother for $312,000, bought a car, which is mostly used by her, but also by you when you"re here. In May 1997, you and your husband accepted an offer of a permanent, full time employment. Your employment commenced on July 1st or 5th, 1997 with the Family Planning Association of Hong Kong. Your application for Citizenship is dated March 16, 1998, the time when you were (and still are) employed in Hong Kong. In November 1997, you arrived here to give birth to a daughter, an event, which occurred on January 29, 1998. You left your new-born baby in care of your parents and returned to Hong Kong to continue your employment there. Since then you visited Canada twice (each time for a month) to see your baby and parents. You also came to Canada for 4 days on March 14, 1999. In the four years prior to your citizenship application, you were physically present in Canada 563 days and absent 897 days. No one can question that you should have an attachment to your family. But this doesn"t translate into an attachment to Canada. You and your husband, both live and work in Hong Kong. You told me your chances of obtaining employment in your field in Canada are non-existent and you"d have to go on welfare. Your action, however point to an attachment and greater commitment to Hong Kong where you have centralized your life with your husband. With your present lifestyle, nothing prevents you from living outside of Canada for an indefinite period. In fact, you signed your application while living and working in Hong Kong. You have established some indicia of residence in Canada, but they are simply props to support the claim of physical presence here, which should stand on each [sic] own without any props. Too long an absence albeit for legitimate purposes defeats the purpose of the residence requirements. I sympathize with your dilemma. |
| Nevertheless as a consequence of your lengthy absence and your concurrent employment in Hong Kong, I have no choice but to decline your application for citizenship at this time, even though in time you"ll make a wonderful citizen. |
[3] In reviewing the decision of the citizenship judge, the standard of review to be applied is close to the correctness end of the spectrum, with "some slight deference"to the decision [See, for example, Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 410, T-1310-98 (March 26, 1999) (T.D.); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lau, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1967, T-1207-98 (December 15, 1999) (T.D.)].
[4] In applying that standard of review and in considering all of the evidence in the record, I have not been persuaded that the citizenship judge erred in law by failing to apply the proper legal principles of residency to the facts. In particular, the applicant"s lengthy absences from Canada during the relevant time period in order to pursue her studies and to work full-time in Hong Kong are inconsistent with the assertion that she has centralized her mode of living in Canada.
[5] The application is therefore dismissed. Counsel for the respondent indicated that he was not seeking costs. There is no order as to costs.
OTTAWA
February 14, 2000
Email this Content