Date: 20120705
Docket: T-9-11
Citation:
2012 FC 852
Calgary, Alberta, July 5, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
|
|
REHANA AZIZ SHAH
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an appeal of a decision of a Citizenship Judge who did not approve Mrs.
Shah’s application for citizenship.
[2]
Mrs.
Shah is a citizen of Pakistan. She became a permanent resident of Canada on September 24, 2002, and submitted an application for citizenship on November 5,
2008.
[3]
On
November 9, 2010, Mrs. Shah attended an interview with a Citizenship Judge.
The Citizenship Judge assessed her physical presence in Canada, her language skills and her knowledge of Canada.
[4]
After
the interview, the Citizenship Judge sent the applicant a letter entitled
“ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST FOR CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION”. That letter
states: “You may provide additional supporting documents and/or evidence that
you deem relevant to proving your physical presence in Canada throughout your relevant period 6 Nov. 2004 – 6 Nov. 2008.” She was given 30 days
to submit that information.
[5]
Before
the expiry of the 30 day period, the very next day, in fact, Mrs. Shah received
a letter rejecting her citizenship application. The Citizenship Judge found
that she failed to satisfy the language requirement at paragraph 5(1)(d) and
the knowledge requirement at paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c
C-29. The
Citizenship Judge’s comment relating to Mrs. Shah’s language abilities are
reproduced below:
The
applicant was able to say hello and tell me her name, but unable to spell it
when asked. She indicated the weather was cold outside, and able to understand
to sit down.
1) I asked the applicant to tell me
about her country and she began talking about her family. She was unable to
tell me about the weather there, foods, or holidays, as I had requested. She
was able to use a short sentence or two, but unable to use connector words.
To
confirm, I asked her to tell me about her family. She was able to tell me how
many sons and daughters she had and some of their occupations, but unable to
form complete sentences or use connector words.
2) I asked the applicant to tell me
about her first day in Canada. She understood the idea of her first day, but
was unable to form sentences or describe any event that happened that day. Any
verbs used were in present tense.
To
confirm, I asked her what she did before coming to Canada. No verbs used were in
past tense.
3) Applicant was able to express
satisfaction with living in Canada, but not in sentences, and did not express
dissatisfaction.
To
confirm, I asked what season she liked the best and which she liked the least.
She expressed satisfaction with holidays and December. She expressed it was
very nice and Christmas was very cold.
4) I asked her where she likes to go
shopping, and directions for how she would get there. She was unable to do this
clearly.
5) She was able to identify items in
my office when asked specifically which objects I pointed to.
6) When asked about what she does in
her free time, she listed several nouns, and used very few verbs, all in
present tense. She was unable to formulate a proper sentence.
[6]
As
for the applicant’s knowledge test, the Citizenship Judge wrote:
At
the hearing, you were able to answer eleven out of 20 questions correctly. A
score of fifteen out of 20, is required to pass. You were unable to answer
fully and correctly questions in respect to voting procedures related to
elections, and one or more of the chief characteristics of each of: Canadian
political and military history, social and cultural history, political
structure; physical and political geography, and characteristics of Canada,
other than those referred to above.
[7]
The
Citizenship Judge considered whether or not to make a recommendation for an
exercise of discretion under subsections 5(3) and 5(4) of the Act but found
there was no evidence presented at the hearing to justify it.
[8]
Mrs.
Shah submits that the Citizenship Judge was prevented from issuing her decision
until the 30 day period for providing the additional information had passed. I
do not agree. The additional documentation related to Mrs. Shah’s presence in Canada, not her abilities in English or her knowledge of Canada. As the decision to reject her
application was made based on those failures, and not her presence in Canada, there was no impediment to the Citizenship judge rendering her decision,
notwithstanding the earlier request for additional information.
[9]
I
further find that the decision of the Citizenship judge as to Mrs. Shah’s
language ability was reasonable. She made her submissions to this Court
through an interpreter. Moreover, she brought with her to the citizenship
hearing the same interpreter. Both appear to have been upset when the Judge
indicated that the interpreter was to remain silent during the hearing. When a
part of the purpose of the hearing is to assess language ability, that is an
appropriate request. The fact that an applicant brings an interpreter with her
strongly suggests that language may be an issue.
[10]
Mrs.
Shah asks the Court to recognize that her English skills are adequate. As she
spoke not one word of English during the hearing of this appeal that is not
possible, even if the Court could substitute its opinion for that of the
Citizenship judge. She says that a person of her age is likely to stumble when
asked the fast and direct questions that she was by a Citizenship Judge with an
oriental accent which was hard to understand. However, no such complaint was
made to the Citizenship Judge and it is too late to raise such issues for the
first time on appeal.
[11]
Mrs.
Shah says that she is the sole caretaker of her 64-year-old husband who wishes
to travel to Pakistan and that she has to go with him and, for piece of mind,
would like her citizenship application completed before then. She further says
that she and her husband are incapable of spending the winters in Canada. As a result, she says that if she were to submit a new citizenship application she
would be refused due to not meeting the minimal physical presence in Canada requirement. All this may be correct, however, none are sufficient to suggest that
the Citizenship Judge erred in her decision or that there are sufficient
grounds to return this for consideration as to whether to make a recommendation
that citizenship be granted notwithstanding her failures regarding language and
knowledge of Canada.
[12]
A
grant of citizenship from a country where one was not born is a privilege, not
a right. The citizens of Canada, through their government, have established
minimum requirements that one must meet if the privilege of citizenship and the
rights that come with it are to be granted. An ability to communicate with
other citizens and to have a basic fundamental knowledge of the history,
political structure, and characteristics of Canada are reasonable requirements
to be granted the privilege of citizenship.
[13]
The
appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the appeal
of the decision of the Citizenship Judge denying the application for
citizenship is dismissed.
"Russel
W. Zinn"
Email this Content