Date: 20070731
Docket: T-1463-06
Citation: 2007 FC 800
Ottawa, Ontario, July 31,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
ZHI
QIANG YANG
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Zhi
Qiang Yang (the Applicant) is appealing a decision by a Citizenship Judge,
dated June 16, 2006, which denied his application for Canadian
citizenship. The Citizenship Judge found that Mr. Yang did not meet the
residency requirement (the Decision). The appeal is brought pursuant to
subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-29 (the Act).
BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant is a citizen of China. He is 43 years old. With his wife and
young daughter he first came to Canada on January 19, 2002
as a permanent resident. The couple had a second daughter while in Canada.
[3]
On
February 23, 2005, Mr. Yang and his wife applied for Canadian
Citizenship. Mr. Yang’s application and his passport show that he was
present in Canada from the
time he landed to the day he applied for Citizenship. In other words, he
declared no absences from Canada in a period of three years and
approximately one month.
[4]
On
February 28, 2005, five days after applying for Citizenship, Mr. Yang and his family returned to China to care for his father and they have lived there since then. Mr.
Yang and his wife returned to Canada to write the citizenship exam in November 2005. However, they flew
back to China four days later.
[5]
The Citizenship Judge was troubled by the
passive nature of the Applicant’s evidence of residence. It included a driver’s
license, a social insurance card, Revenue Canada statements showing no income and no tax paid and bank statements
showing that he and his wife had a joint account.
[6]
The Citizenship Judge concluded that the
Applicant had organized his affairs so that he was “virtually invisible” in
that he did not demonstrate any economic, social or cultural activity in Canada. The Judge noted that, although this
was the Applicant’s right, his conduct left open the possibility that he had
been spending extended periods outside Canada without declaring them.
[7]
The Applicant relied heavily on his People’s
Republic of China (PRC) passport
(the First Passport) because it was the only documentary evidence which showed an
entry to Canada on
January 19, 2002 as a permanent resident and no subsequent absences. If
believed, this evidence meant that the Applicant had been in Canada for 1130
days thereby exceeding the 1095 day requirement under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the
Act.
[8]
However, the Citizenship Judge noticed that the
Applicant’s passport included a stamp which said:
This passport is to be used
simultaneously with passport No. 149078204 of the P.R.C.
I will refer to this as the Second
Passport.
[9]
When
asked about the Second Passport, the Applicant initially denied that it
existed. Then he changed his explanation and said that since the Second
Passport was full he had left it in China. He also indicated that
it had disappeared and speculated that his father had thrown it away.
[10]
The
Citizenship Judge did not accept this explanation. He thought it unlikely that
an important document would be thrown away and was concerned that the Applicant
had not been forthright about the Second Passport until he was pressed.
[11]
The
Citizenship Judge concluded that if the Second Passport was to be used
simultaneously with the First Passport, then the Second Passport must have been
used to enter Canada and
therefore should have been produced in response to the Respondent’s written
requests of February 3 and May 15, 2006.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[12]
In this case, the
issue on appeal can be stated as follows: Was the Citizenship Judge, in the
unusual circumstances of this case, entitled to make a negative credibility
finding resulting in the rejection of the Applicant’s explanation for his
inability to produce his Second Passport? In my view, credibility findings
are entitled to considerable deference and would only be reversed if patently
unreasonable.
THE EVIDENCE
[13]
Since
the First Passport was a critical component of the Applicant’s case, the
Applicant should have been prepared to explain the stamp it contained which
disclosed the existence of the Second Passport and indicated that the two
passports were to be used simultaneously. He should also have adduced other
evidence to corroborate his presence in Canada.
[14]
The
Applicant offered such evidence before this hearing but I declined to accept it
as it was not new and could have been brought before the Citizenship Judge.
[15]
For
all these reasons, I have found that the Citizenship Judge’s conclusions were
reasonable.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that the appeal is dismissed.
“Sandra
J. Simpson”
Email this Content