Date:
20130226
Docket:
T-762-12
Citation:
2013 FC 194
Ottawa, Ontario,
February 26, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Manson
BETWEEN:
|
|
ALKABEN JAYANTKUMAR DESAI
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This
is a citizenship appeal pursuant to section 21 of the Federal Courts Act,
RSC, 1985, c F-7 and subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985,
c C-29 [the Act].
I. Background
[2]
The
applicant is a citizen of the Republic of India, who became a permanent
resident of Canada on May 12, 2006. On May 28, 2009, the applicant applied for
Canadian citizenship and wrote her citizenship test on December 10, 2010.
[3]
On
February 14, 2012, the applicant attended a hearing before the Citizenship
Judge, and on October 31, 2011, the Citizenship Judge issued his decision in
which he did not approve the applicant’s citizenship application.
[4]
The
Citizenship Judge found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of
paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act in order to obtain Canadian Citizenship, in that
she did not have an adequate knowledge of either French or English. The
Citizenship Judge found that the applicant could not convey basic information
or simply provide answers to questions.
[5]
The
Citizenship Judge also declined to recommend a favourable exercise of
discretion on the basis of compassionate grounds pursuant to subsection 5(3) of
the Act, or as a case of special or unusual hardship or to reward services of
exceptional value to Canada (subsection 5(4)). He noted that the applicant “did
not present sufficient evidence to me of special circumstances that would
justify me in making such a recommendation.”
II. Issue
[6]
The
issue raised in the present application is as follows:
A. Did
the Citizenship Judge improperly apply paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act by finding
that the applicant did not possess an adequate understanding of English?
III. Standard
of review
[7]
The
applicable standard of review for a decision of a Citizenship Judge, including
discretionary determinations is reasonableness (Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 874 at paras 10-11; Amoah v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 775 at para 14).
[8]
Citizenship
appeals are not trials de novo and are to be based on the record before the
Citizenship Judge (Lama v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2005 FC 461 at para 21; Hassan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2002 FCT 755 at para 10).
[9]
Therefore,
the Court will only intervene where there is a lack of justification,
transparency and intelligibility or an unacceptable outcome in light of the
facts and law (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47).
IV. Analysis
[10]
The
applicant argues that the adequacy of the basic language requirement is
not well defined under paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act or section 14 of the Citizenship
Regulations, SOR/93-246
[Regulations].
While the applicant answered questions put to her, it was nevertheless
reasonable for the Citizenship Judge to find the answers did not meet the basic
level required by section 14 of the Regulations. The Citizenship Judge provided
a proper contextual basis for his reasons and I find the Judge’s decision both
reasonable and acceptable.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that:
1.
The
applicant’s appeal is dismissed;
2.
No
costs are awarded.
"Michael D.
Manson"
Email this Content