Date:
20120814
Docket:
T-631-11
Citation: 2012
FC 995
Ottawa, Ontario,
August 14, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny
BETWEEN:
|
|
ABED HADAYDOUN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an appeal by Abed Hadaydoun (the Applicant) under subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship
Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 (the Act) of a decision dated March 1, 2011 by
Alain Ayache, a citizenship judge of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC).
In the decision, the citizenship judge refused to approve the Applicant’s
application for citizenship.
[2]
For
the reasons that follow, I have come to the conclusion that the appeal should
be dismissed and that the decision of the citizenship judge should stand.
FACTS
[3]
The
Applicant, was born on March 26, 1954 and is a citizen of Jordan. He was granted permanent residency in Canada on March 9, 2000 and moved to Canada on that date. As his employer was not willing to terminate his employment contract,
he had to return to Jordan to train a replacement. In July 2002, the Applicant
completed his work with the Saudi Arabian company (Al-Wafa Printing Press Co.)
and settled in Montreal with his family.
[4]
In
September 2004, the Applicant negotiated a new employment agreement with the
printing company to work as a consultant. The agreement provided that the
Applicant attends meetings in Jordan to provide guidance, but the company
covers all travelling expenses. At his interview with a citizenship officer on
April 7, 2010, the Applicant stated that he travelled for this position about
every three to four months, with each trip lasting approximately five days.
[5]
On
October 14, 2008, the Applicant submitted his application for citizenship to
the CIC, and indicated that he had spent more than the required number of days
within Canada in the previous four (4) years. The Applicant indicated that he
had spent 240 days outside of Canada and 1220 days within Canada during the requisite period, which exceeds the minimum number of days of 1095.
[6]
The
Applicant was brought in for appointments and interviews with CIC officials on
April 7, October 26 and November 15, 2010. It is unclear from the Certified
Tribunal Record what transpired in advance and at the November 15 meeting, as
no notes are included. The Applicant states that a citizenship officer prepared
a Section 44 Report and as a result, a departure order was issued to the
Applicant at that meeting.
[7]
The
departure order states that the (unnamed) officer was satisfied that the
Applicant fell under paragraph 41(b) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]: “… in that, on a
balance of probabilities, there are grounds to believe is a permanent resident
who is inadmissible for failing to comply with the residency obligation of
section 28 of the [IRPA]”.
[8]
On
November 16, 2010, the Applicant filed an appeal to the Immigration Appeal
Board against the decision to issue the departure order.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[9]
The
Applicant appeared before the citizenship judge on February 24, 2011, and a
brief decision was issued on March 1, 2011. The judge found that the Applicant
was under a removal order, which entailed the loss of his permanent resident
status. Therefore, the judge concluded that the Applicant’s application for
citizenship must be refused, as he failed to satisfy both paragraph 5(1)(c) and
paragraph 5(1)(f) of the Act.
[10]
The
citizenship judge also considered whether a favourable recommendation was warranted
under subsection 5(4) of the Act, which is meant to alleviate special or
unusual hardship. The judge found that no material support was presented by the
Applicant and concluded that the case did not warrant a favourable
recommendation. The judge also noted in the decision that a new application for
citizenship could be made at any time.
ISSUES
[11]
The
citizenship judge rejected the Applicant’s application on the basis that he
fell afoul of paragraphs 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(f) of the Act. Accordingly,
there are two separate issues to be discussed in the context of this appeal:
1) Did the
citizenship judge err by determining that the Applicant had lost his permanent
resident status?
2) Did the
citizenship judge err by determining that the Applicant was subject to a
removal order?
THE RELEVANT
LEGISLATION
[12]
The
relevant provisions of the Citizenship Act provide as follows:
|
2. (2)
For the purposes of this Act,
…
(c) a
person against whom a removal order has been made remains under that order
(i)
unless all rights of review by or appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court of Canada have been exhausted with respect to the order and the
final result of those reviews or appeals is that the order has no force or
effect, or
(ii)
until the order has been executed.
|
2.
(2) Pour l’application de la présente loi :
…
c)
une mesure de renvoi reste en vigueur jusqu’à, selon le cas :
(i)
son annulation après épuisement des voies de recours devant la section
d’appel de l’immigration de la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de
réfugié, la Cour d’appel fédérale et la Cour suprême du Canada,
(ii)
son exécution.
|
|
Grant
of citizenship
5. (1)
The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who
(a)
makes application for citizenship;
(b) is
eighteen years of age or over;
(c) is
a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, and has, within the four years immediately preceding
the date of his or her application, accumulated at least three years of
residence in Canada calculated in the following manner:
(i)
for every day during which the person was resident in Canada before his
lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed
to have accumulated one-half of a day of residence, and
(ii)
for every day during which the person was resident in Canada after his lawful
admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to
have accumulated one day of residence;
(d)
has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;
(e)
has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and
privileges of citizenship; and
(f) is
not under a removal order and is not the subject of a declaration by the
Governor in Council made pursuant to section 20.
|
Attribution
de la citoyenneté
5.
(1) Le ministre attribue la citoyenneté à toute personne qui, à la fois :
a)
en fait la demande;
b)
est âgée d’au moins dix-huit ans;
c)
est un résident permanent au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l’immigration
et la protection des réfugiés et a, dans les quatre ans qui ont précédé
la date de sa demande, résidé au Canada pendant au moins trois ans en tout,
la durée de sa résidence étant calculée de la manière suivante :
(i)
un demi-jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada avant son admission à
titre de résident permanent,
(ii)
un jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada après son admission à titre
de résident permanent;
d)
a une connaissance suffisante de l’une des langues officielles du Canada;
e)
a une connaissance suffisante du Canada et des responsabilités et avantages
conférés par la citoyenneté;
f)
n’est pas sous le coup d’une mesure de renvoi et n’est pas visée par une
déclaration du gouverneur en conseil faite en application de l’article 20.
|
|
Special
cases
5. (4)
In order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward
services of an exceptional value to Canada, and notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the Governor in Council may, in his discretion, direct
the Minister to grant citizenship to any person and, where such a direction
is made, the Minister shall forthwith grant citizenship to the person named
in the direction.
|
Cas
particuliers
5.
(4) Afin de remédier à une situation particulière et inhabituelle de détresse
ou de récompenser des services exceptionnels rendus au Canada, le gouverneur
en conseil a le pouvoir discrétionnaire, malgré les autres dispositions de la
présente loi, d’ordonner au ministre d’attribuer la citoyenneté à toute
personne qu’il désigne; le ministre procède alors sans délai à l’attribution.
|
|
Consideration
by citizenship judge
14.
(1) An application for
(a) a
grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1) or (5),
(b)
[Repealed, 2008, c. 14, s. 10]
(c) a
renunciation of citizenship under subsection 9(1), or
(d) a
resumption of citizenship under subsection 11(1)
shall
be considered by a citizenship judge who shall, within sixty days of the day
the application was referred to the judge, determine whether or not the
person who made the application meets the requirements of this Act and the
regulations with respect to the application.
Interruption
of proceedings
(1.1)
Where an applicant is a permanent resident who is the subject of an
admissibility hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
the citizenship judge may not make a determination under subsection (1) until
there has been a final determination whether, for the purposes of that Act, a
removal order shall be made against that applicant.
|
Examen
par un juge de la citoyenneté
14.
(1) Dans les soixante jours de sa saisine, le juge de la citoyenneté statue
sur la conformité — avec les dispositions applicables en l’espèce de la
présente loi et de ses règlements — des demandes déposées en vue de :
a)
l’attribution de la citoyenneté, au titre des paragraphes 5(1) ou (5);
b)
[Abrogé, 2008, ch. 14, art. 10]
c)
la répudiation de la citoyenneté, au titre du paragraphe 9(1);
d)
la réintégration dans la citoyenneté, au titre du paragraphe 11(1).
Interruption
de la procédure
(1.1)
Le juge de la citoyenneté ne peut toutefois statuer sur la demande émanant
d’un résident permanent qui fait l’objet d’une enquête dans le cadre de la
Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés tant qu’il n’a pas
été décidé en dernier ressort si une mesure de renvoi devrait être prise
contre lui.
|
[13]
Also
of relevance are the following provisions of the IRPA:
|
Residency
obligation
28.
(1) A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect
to every five-year period.
Application
(2)
The following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection
(1):
(a) a
permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a
five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that
five-year period, they are
(i)
physically present in Canada,
(ii)
outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or
common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,
(iii)
outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the
federal public administration or the public service of a province,
(iv)
outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or
common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is
employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public
administration or the public service of a province, or
(v)
referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance;
(b) it
is sufficient for a permanent resident to demonstrate at examination
(i) if
they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will
be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
immediately after they became a permanent resident;
(ii)
if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have
met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately
before the examination; and
(c) a
determination by an officer that humanitarian and compassionate
considerations relating to a permanent resident, taking into account the best
interests of a child directly affected by the determination, justify the
retention of permanent resident status overcomes any breach of the residency
obligation prior to the determination.
|
Obligation
de résidence
28.
(1) L’obligation de résidence est applicable à chaque période quinquennale.
Application
(2)
Les dispositions suivantes régissent l’obligation de résidence :
a)
le résident permanent se conforme à l’obligation dès lors que, pour au moins
730 jours pendant une période quinquennale, selon le cas :
(i)
il est effectivement présent au Canada,
(ii)
il accompagne, hors du Canada, un citoyen canadien qui est son époux ou
conjoint de fait ou, dans le cas d’un enfant, l’un de ses parents,
(iii)
il travaille, hors du Canada, à temps plein pour une entreprise canadienne ou
pour l’administration publique fédérale ou provinciale,
(iv)
il accompagne, hors du Canada, un résident permanent qui est son époux ou
conjoint de fait ou, dans le cas d’un enfant, l’un de ses parents, et qui
travaille à temps plein pour une entreprise canadienne ou pour
l’administration publique fédérale ou provinciale,
(v)
il se conforme au mode d’exécution prévu par règlement;
b)
il suffit au résident permanent de prouver, lors du contrôle, qu’il se
conformera à l’obligation pour la période quinquennale suivant l’acquisition
de son statut, s’il est résident permanent depuis moins de cinq ans, et, dans
le cas contraire, qu’il s’y est conformé pour la période quinquennale
précédant le contrôle;
c)
le constat par l’agent que des circonstances d’ordre humanitaire relatives au
résident permanent — compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant
directement touché — justifient le maintien du statut rend inopposable
l’inobservation de l’obligation précédant le contrôle.
|
|
Non-compliance
with Act
41. A
person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act
(a) in
the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes,
directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act; and
(b) in
the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection
27(2) or section 28.
|
Manquement
à la loi
41.
S’agissant de l’étranger, emportent interdiction de territoire pour
manquement à la présente loi tout fait — acte ou omission — commis
directement ou indirectement en contravention avec la présente loi et,
s’agissant du résident permanent, le manquement à l’obligation de résidence
et aux conditions imposées.
|
|
Preparation
of report
44.
(1) An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign
national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out
the relevant facts, which report shall be transmitted to the Minister.
Referral
or removal order
(2) If
the Minister is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, the Minister
may refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility
hearing, except in the case of a permanent resident who is inadmissible
solely on the grounds that they have failed to comply with the residency
obligation under section 28 and except, in the circumstances prescribed by
the regulations, in the case of a foreign national. In those cases, the
Minister may make a removal order.
Conditions
(3) An
officer or the Immigration Division may impose any conditions, including the
payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee for compliance with the
conditions, that the officer or the Division considers necessary on a
permanent resident or a foreign national who is the subject of a report, an
admissibility hearing or, being in Canada, a removal order.
|
Rapport
d’interdiction de territoire
44.
(1) S’il estime que le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui se trouve au
Canada est interdit de territoire, l’agent peut établir un rapport
circonstancié, qu’il transmet au ministre.
Suivi
(2)
S’il estime le rapport bien fondé, le ministre peut déférer l’affaire à la
Section de l’immigration pour enquête, sauf s’il s’agit d’un résident
permanent interdit de territoire pour le seul motif qu’il n’a pas respecté
l’obligation de résidence ou, dans les circonstances visées par les
règlements, d’un étranger; il peut alors prendre une mesure de renvoi.
Conditions
(3)
L’agent ou la Section de l’immigration peut imposer les conditions qu’il
estime nécessaires, notamment la remise d’une garantie d’exécution, au
résident permanent ou à l’étranger qui fait l’objet d’un rapport ou d’une
enquête ou, étant au Canada, d’une mesure de renvoi.
|
|
Permanent
resident
46.
(1) A person loses permanent resident status
(a)
when they become a Canadian citizen;
(b) on
a final determination of a decision made outside of Canada that they have failed to comply with the residency obligation under section 28;
(c)
when a removal order made against them comes into force; or
(d) on
a final determination under section 109 to vacate a decision to allow their
claim for refugee protection or a final determination under subsection 114(3)
to vacate a decision to allow their application for protection.
Permanent
resident
(2) A
person who ceases to be a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship
Act, other than in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of that
Act, becomes a permanent resident.
|
Résident
permanent
46.
(1) Emportent perte du statut de résident permanent les faits suivants :
a)
l’obtention de la citoyenneté canadienne;
b)
la confirmation en dernier ressort du constat, hors du Canada, de manquement
à l’obligation de résidence;
c)
la prise d’effet de la mesure de renvoi;
d)
l’annulation en dernier ressort de la décision ayant accueilli la demande
d’asile ou celle d’accorder la demande de protection.
Effet
de la perte de la citoyenneté
(2)
Devient résident permanent quiconque perd la citoyenneté au titre de l’alinéa
10(1)a) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté, sauf s’il est visé au paragraphe
10(2) de cette loi.
|
|
In
force
49.
(1) A removal order comes into force on the latest of the following dates:
(a) the
day the removal order is made, if there is no right to appeal;
(b)
the day the appeal period expires, if there is a right to appeal and no
appeal is made; and
(c)
the day of the final determination of the appeal, if an appeal is made.
In
force — claimants
(2)
Despite subsection (1), a removal order made with respect to a refugee
protection claimant is conditional and comes into force on the latest of the
following dates:
(a)
the day the claim is determined to be ineligible only under paragraph 101(1)(e);
(b) in
a case other than that set out in paragraph (a), seven days after the claim
is determined to be ineligible;
(c) 15
days after notification that the claim is rejected by the Refugee Protection
Division, if no appeal is made, or by the Refugee Appeal Division, if an
appeal is made;
(d) 15
days after notification that the claim is declared withdrawn or abandoned;
and
(e) 15
days after proceedings are terminated as a result of notice under paragraph
104(1)(c) or (d).
|
Prise
d’effet
49.
(1) La mesure de renvoi non susceptible d’appel prend effet immédiatement;
celle susceptible d’appel prend effet à l’expiration du délai d’appel, s’il
n’est pas formé, ou quand est rendue la décision qui a pour résultat le
maintien définitif de la mesure.
Cas
du demandeur d’asile
(2)
Toutefois, celle visant le
demandeur
d’asile est conditionnelle et prend effet :
a)
sur constat d’irrecevabilité au seul titre de l’alinéa 101(1)e);
b)
sept jours après le constat, dans les autres cas d’irrecevabilité prévus au
paragraphe 101(1);
c)
quinze jours après la notification du rejet de sa demande par la Section de
la protection des réfugiés ou, en cas d’appel, par la Section d’appel des
réfugiés;
d)
quinze jours après la notification de la décision prononçant le désistement
ou le retrait de sa demande;
e)
quinze jours après le classement de l’affaire au titre de l’avis visé aux
alinéas 104(1)c) ou d).
|
|
Right
to appeal — visa and removal order
63.
(2) A foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the
Immigration Appeal Division against a decision at an examination or
admissibility hearing to make a removal order against them.
|
Droit
d’appel : mesure de renvoi
63.
(2) Le titulaire d’un visa de résident permanent peut interjeter appel de la
mesure de renvoi prise au contrôle ou à l’enquête.
|
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[14]
The
appeal in this case relates essentially to the determination made by a
citizenship judge under section 5 of the Act. The Federal Court has
produced a great deal of jurisprudence on these types of decisions, most of
which relates to interpretations of the residence requirements. Justice
Mainville engaged in a very detailed analysis of this jurisprudence and the
appropriate standard of review to be applied in these types of appeals in Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Takla, 2009 FC 1120 at paras 16
to 39, concluding at para 39 with:
In
this context, I am of the view that the reasonableness standard of review must
be applied with flexibility and adapted to the particular context in question.
Thus, the Court must show deference, but a qualified deference, when hearing an
appeal from a decision by a citizenship judge under subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship
Act concerning the determination of compliance with the residence
requirement. The issues of jurisdiction, procedural fairness and natural
justice raised in these appeals are nonetheless reviewed against the
correctness standard in accordance with the principles outlined in Dunsmuir.
This is an approach that is consistent with both Parliament's expressed
intention to subject these decisions to a right of appeal and the Supreme Court
of Canada's teachings concerning the duty of the courts to show deference when
sitting on an appeal from decisions of administrative tribunals.
[15]
Since
the two issues to be decided in this appeal primarily concern the proper
interpretation of certain provisions of the Citizenship Act and of the IRPA,
as well as their application to the facts that were put before the citizenship
judge, the proper standard of review to be applied would seem to be that of
reasonableness. I recognize however that in Obi v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 573 [Obi], the Court came to
the conclusion that the proper interpretation of subsection 14(1.1) of the Citizenship
Act affects the jurisdiction or vires of the citizenship judge to
determine the citizenship application and therefore attracts the standard of
correctness. While I am of the view that this case differs from Obi and
does not turn on the application of subsection 14(1.1), there is another, more
compelling reason not to apply the correctness standard.
[16]
In
Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers'
Association,
2011 SCC 61, [2011 3 SCR 654], Justice Rothstein, writing for the majority,
revisited the issue of ‘true question of jurisdiction or vires’ and
acknowledged that this category has led to confusion. He explicitly narrowed
its application to exceptional circumstances (at paras 33 to 39). Justice
Rothstein directed reviewing courts to take a narrow approach to the ‘true
jurisdiction’ category, particularly where a tribunal is interpreting its
enabling statute.
[17]
He
went so far as to foreshadow the Court’s openness to abolishing the ‘pure
jurisdiction’ category of correctness review in a future case (at para 34).
While that category still exists, there is a presumption that the standard of
reasonableness will nonetheless apply, and that the party will be required to
“demonstrate why the court should not review [the] tribunal’s interpretation of
its home statute on the deferential standard of reasonableness” (at para 39).
[18]
On
the basis of this latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Canada, I will
proceed to review the decision of the citizenship judge on a standard of
reasonableness.
1) Did the
citizenship judge err by determining that the Applicant had lost his permanent
resident status?
[19]
The
citizenship judge erred by determining that the Applicant had lost his
permanent resident status and was therefore ineligible for citizenship as per
paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. Neither the Applicant nor the
Respondent have specifically addressed this issue in their representations, but
it is clear from a careful reading of paragraph 46(1)(c) and subsection 49(1)
of the IRPA that the Applicant had not yet lost his permanent resident
status.
[20]
The
only paragraph relevant to the Applicant in subsection 46(1) is paragraph (c),
whereby a person loses permanent resident status “when a removal order made
against them comes into force”. Pursuant to subsection 49(1), a removal order
comes into force only on the day of the final determination of the appeal, if
an appeal is made. Since the appeal of the Applicant had not been decided at
the time of the citizenship judge’s decision, the Applicant retained his
permanent resident status and could not be denied citizenship for the reason
that he had lost his permanent resident status.
2) Did the
citizenship judge err by determining that the Applicant was subject to a
removal order?
[21]
Counsel
for the Applicant submitted that, at the time of the hearing before the
citizenship judge, there was no valid removal order in existence, and that the
citizenship judge’s finding that there was one, is an error. According to
counsel, a removal order is stayed until all avenues of review and appeal are
exhausted and there is a final disposition. I cannot agree with that argument.
[22]
The
interpretation advanced by counsel for the Applicant is unequivocally
contradicted by paragraph 2(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act.
[23]
Therefore,
according to that provision, the Applicant remained “under a removal order”
(the language used in paragraph 5(1)(f) of the Act) unless a final
determination has been made and the result of that final determination is to
quash the removal order. From the time that a removal order is issued and for
the period during which the removal order is under judicial review or appeal,
the person is ineligible for citizenship under paragraph 5(1)(f) of the Act.
[24]
Moreover,
the citizenship judge did not have jurisdiction to postpone the hearing until
the appeal process of the removal order was completed. The procedure and
timeline is laid out by subsection 14(1) of the Act, according to which
the citizenship judge must come to a determination of an application for a
grant of citizenship “within sixty days of the day the application was referred
to [him]”. There is no provision for a delay or adjournment, or extension of
time available for citizenship judges to come to a determination on the
citizenship application once it is referred to them.
[25]
Counsel
for the Applicant tried to argue that the Applicant’s situation is exactly the
same as that of Mr. Obi and that his case should therefore be decided in the
same manner. I agree with counsel for the Respondent that the two cases are
quite different and cannot be equated.
[26]
In
Obi, the Applicant was issued a removal order for inadmissibility on the
grounds that he had not disclosed a previous conviction in the United States. This order was appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), which
granted him a stay of removal for four years, at which time the IAD would
revisit the stay of the removal order. Before the term of the stay was up, the
applicant’s application came before a citizenship judge, who refused him
citizenship based on paragraph 5(1)(c) and paragraph 5(1)(f) of the Act.
Relying on subsection 14(1.1) of the Act, the Court allowed the appeal.
[27]
Under
section 44 of the IRPA, a report by an officer who determines that a
permanent resident is inadmissible to Canada is forwarded to the Minister. If
the Minister is of the view that the report is well-founded, he may refer the
report to the IAD for an admissibility hearing. However, where the sole ground
of inadmissibility is that a permanent resident has failed to meet the
residency requirements under section 28 of the IRPA, a removal order is
issued without the need for an admissibility hearing.
[28]
This
is precisely what happened in the case at bar. The Applicant was not awaiting
an admissibility hearing and was not entitled to such a hearing. As a result,
the exception provided in subsection 14(1.1) of the Citizenship Act did
not apply to the Applicant’s removal order, as he was not subject to an
admissibility hearing. In fact, the removal order issued against the Applicant
was a “departure order”, pursuant to paragraph 229(1)(k) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227.
[29]
As
a result, I am of the view that this appeal must fail. Despite the fact that
the citizenship judge erred in denying citizenship on the basis of paragraph
5(1)(c), he was obligated to reject the application within 60 days of the date
the application was referred to him as per paragraph 5(1)(f) and subsection
14(1) of the Citizenship Act.
[30]
While
this result may seem harsh, the Applicant is nevertheless free to re-apply if
he is successful in his appeal of the removal order.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
"Yves de Montigny"
Email this Content