Yip (Re), docket T-1145-96

     T-1145-96

AND:          IN THE MATTER of

     KIT MEI YIP,

     Appellant

     J U D G M E N T

DENAULT J:

     This is an appeal from the decision of a Citizenship judge dated March 29, 1996, wherein the judge did not approve the appellant's application for grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1) of the Act. The Citizenship judge found that the appellant met all the requirements for citizenship set out in The Citizenship Act, except for the mandatory number of days of actual residence. Under paragraph 5(1)c) of the Act, an applicant has to accumulate at least three years of residence in Canada within the four years immediately preceding his or her application.

     The appellant was granted permanent resident status in Canada on October 28, 1992. At the time, she had come from New York (USA), where she had been studying since 1990, to meet her parents who had decided to immigrate from Hong Kong to Canada and had just been granted permanent resident status. Her parents purchased a home wherein the appellant had a bedroom and where she could store all of her belongings. After settling in Canada, she went back to the United States in November 1992 to continue her course of studies at The College of Staten Island of The City University of New York. For the next two years, she attended the school terms, returning to her residence in Canada during the Christmas and summer vacations. Since her graduation in March 1995, she is back in Canada where she lives with her parents.

     During her stay in the USA she pursued her education and had no employment. Her tuition fees and living costs were paid by her father, either directly to her or to her aunt with whom she stayed. During the entire period she was absent from Canada, she was fully dependent on her parents, carrying on a program of studies which she had undertaken prior to immigrating to Canada, coming back to Canada and residing with her parents whenever she had opportunity to do so during vacation periods. Upon her return to Canada in March 1995, she showed a continuing intention to reside in Canada by working in a restaurant. She is now considering taking a Master's degree in Science in Canada, after she has reimbursed her father part of the expenses already incurred by her studies. She has a bank account, has filed an income tax return in 1995 and she detains credit cards.

     In my view, it is clear on the facts that the appellant was financially dependent on her parents and that the pursuit of her studies was the only reason why she spent time in the USA, from where she came back to Canada immediately upon obtaining her degree.

     For these reasons, I find that the appellant has satisfied the requirements prescribed by paragraph 5(1)c) of the Citizenship Act.

     Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

OTTAWA, February 17, 1997

J.F.C.C.