Wei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket T-254-98

Date: 19990216

Docket: T-254-98

BETWEEN:

     IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,

     R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29

     AND IN THE MATER OF an appeal

     from the decision of a Citizenship Judge

     AND IN THE MATTER OF

     NI CHIH WEI

     Appellant

     and

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DUBÉ J :

[1]      The appellant appeals the decision of a Citizenship Judge to the effect that he has not complied with paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act on the ground that he is short 350 days of residency in Canada during the four years preceding his application for citizenship.

[2]      The appellant landed in Montréal, Québec, in August 1993 with his wife and two children and bought a house at Brossard, Québec, where the family has been living since that time. The appellant's wife and his children are now Canadian citizens but, in his case, he has had to travel abroad mostly to Taiwan so as to carry out his export-import business, namely importing furniture from Taiwan to Canada and exporting medicine from Canada to Taiwan. In 1994, he founded his own international agency under the name of Fuh Shyh Feng International Inc. ("F.S.F."). The only home he has is in Brossard where he returns to after his trips abroad.

[3]      The jurisprudence has now well established the principle that residency in Canada for the purposes of citizenship does not imply full-time physical presence. The place of residence of a person is not where that person works but where he or she returns to after work. Hence, an applicant for citizenship who has clearly and definitively established a home in Canada with the transparent intention of maintaining permanent roots in this country ought not to be deprived of citizenship merely because he has to earn his livelihood and that of his family by doing business offshore. The most eloquent of the indicia of residency is the permanent establishment of a person and his family in this country.

[4]      The appellant has clearly met these criteria of residency.

[5]      Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

OTTAWA, Ontario

February 16, 1999

     Judge