T-1663-96
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
Jose
Johnny Galindez-Diaz
Appellant
REASONS
FOR ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench
at Toronto, Ontario on
March 11, 1997, as edited)
McKEOWN J.
This
matter came for hearing before me at Toronto on March 11, 1997.
The
appellant appeals the decision of a Citizenship Judge dated May 20, 1996, refusing
his application for Canadian citizenship on the basis that he did not meet the
requirement of residence for a Canadian citizen under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship
Act (the Act).
The
issue is whether or not the appellant satisfied the residence requirements
enunciated in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act. The Citizenship Judge based her
decision on the following three paragraphs:
According to your file you were
granted landed immigrant status in Canada, on September 10, 1993. Your
application for Citizenship, was signed on October 21, 1995. Thus, you have
not accumulated the required 1,095 days stay in Canada.
While, it is a fact that you
entered Canada on August 03, 1990, a check with immigration reveals that not
only did you fail to obtain authorization prior to leaving Canada, but further,
that your permit to stay in Canada, expired on April 30, 1993.
As during the period between April
30, 1993, and your being granted landed immigrant status, you had no legal
status in Canada, your stay in Canada prior to landing cannot be considered.
Unfortunately,
the employment authorization visa which had been issued by Employment and
Immigration Canada was not before the Citizenship Judge. The employment
authorization visa was signed April 17, 1993 and was valid until October 16,
1993.
When
the appellant became a landed immigrant on September 10, 1993, the visa was
deleted from the appellant's passport. However, the visa exists and did exist
and there was no gap in the appellant's lawful stay in Canada, which commenced
August 3, 1990. The appellant clearly had centralized his mode of living in
Canada and the error of the Citizenship Judge has been rectified. I am
satisfied that the appellant has met the residence requirements of paragraph
5(1)(c) of the Act in Canada, as required thereunder. Accordingly, the appeal
is allowed.
_______________________________
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 16, 1997