Date:
20130314
Docket:
T-1413-12
Citation:
2013 FC 270
Ottawa, Ontario,
March 14, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Strickland
BETWEEN:
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
SUSAN CECILIA LEE
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Applicant) brought
pursuant to subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29,
and section 21 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, appealing the
May 23, 2012 decision of a citizenship judge (Citizenship Judge) which approved
the citizenship application of Susan Cecilia Lee (Respondent) pursuant to
subsection 5 (1) of the Citizenship Act.
Background
[2]
The
Respondent is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago and a permanent resident of Canada. She arrived in Canada as a landed immigrant on August 17, 1975, at the age of 19.
She has been in a common-law relationship with a Canadian citizen since 1982
and they have four children born in Canada, three of which are biological.
[3]
The
Respondent applied for Canadian citizenship on May 8, 2010 and reported no
absences from Canada during the relevant four-year period, being May 8, 2006 to
May 8, 2010.
[4]
Attached
to the Respondent’s citizenship application was a letter explaining why she was
unable to provide photo identification:
-
She
did not have a driver’s licence because she did not need one. Her partner
drove and she lived in downtown Toronto where public transportation was ample;
-
She
had not left Canada in over 34 years and therefore had not acquired a passport;
-
She
had the ‘old’ Ontario health card which does not need to be renewed every five
years;
-
She
was a stay-at-home mom for approximately 25 years.
[5]
Given
this situation, the Respondent instead provided sworn true copies of her record
of landing, expired passport from Trinidad & Tobago, birth certificate, Ontario health card and social insurance (SIN) card.
[6]
She
took and passed the citizenship test on July 7, 2011 and was then asked to meet
with an immigration officer because she did not have any photo identification.
At this meeting she was asked for and provided information concerning her
travel, employment and medical history.
[7]
At
the end of that meeting the Respondent was given a letter requesting that she
provide additional information:
-
Two
pieces of valid provincial identification, at least one with a photograph (e.g.
a valid Ontario driver’s license, Ontario Health Card);
-
All
pages of any passport, valid or expired for 2006 to date;
-
Income
tax returns (Notices of Assessment) for 2006 to date;
-
An
Integrated Customs Enforcement System (ICES) traveller history;
-
A
residence questionnaire;
-
Birth
certificates for all of her children; and
-
A
medical visit summary for 2006 to date.
[8]
With
the exception of the medical visits summary (which was noted to follow and did
on September 20, 2011) and the Notices of Assessment for 2009 and 2010, these
documents were provided with an accompanying letter from the Respondent’s
immigration consultant dated August 20, 2011. The provincial
identification was comprised of a SIN card, Ontario Health card, Ontario photo identification card and Canadian Immigrant ID Record.
[9]
Following
her hearing before the Citizenship Judge on February 10, 2012, the Respondent
was asked to provide further additional documents as follows:
-
ICES
traveller history 08 / May / 2006 to 08 / May / 2010;
-
Record
of exit/entry Trinidad & Tobago;
OR - Letter
confirming no other passports issued to you after PPT# 348884 from Trinidad
& Tobago embassy or relevant authority;
-
NOA’s
for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
[10]
In
response to this request, the Respondent provided her ICES traveller history,
which confirms that “no records were found” for the period of May 8, 2006 to
May 8, 2010 (i.e. there was no record of the Respondent crossing the Canadian
border during that period).
[11]
The
Respondent’s application for citizenship was approved on May 23, 2012 (the
Decision), that Decision is under review in the present case.
[12]
The
Decision is contained in a standard form document entitled “Notice to the
Minister of the Decision of the Citizenship Judge”. The “reasons” section of
that form is completed as follows:
After very careful consideration of all of the
documentary evidence along with the verbal evidence presented at the hearing, I
am satisfied that [the] applicant, on the balance of probabilities, meets the
requirements of 5 (1)(c) [of the Citizenship Act]. I based my decision
mostly on the strength of the ICES report that shows no entries into Canada during [the] review period.
[13]
In
the “Required Documents Seen” section of the form is entered “HC, Ont photo
card, IMM1000”, under the CSIS section the date 06 February 2012 is entered,
and under the RCMP section the date 14 February 2012 is entered.
Issues
[14]
I
would phrase the issues as follows:
(a) What
is the applicable standard of review?
(b) Were
the Citizenship Judge’s reasons inadequate?
(c) Was
the Citizenship Judge’s decision to approve Ms. Lee’s citizenship application
reasonable?
Analysis
(a) What is the Applicable Standard of Review?
[15]
The Supreme Court of Canada
in Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para 57 [Dunsmuir] held that a standard of review analysis need not be conducted
in every instance. Instead, where the standard of review applicable to a
particular question before the court is well-settled by past jurisprudence, the
reviewing court may adopt that standard of review. Only where the search proves fruitless must
the reviewing court undertake a consideration of the four factors comprising
the standard of review analysis (Dunsmuir,
above; Kisana v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 189, [2009] FCJ no 713 at
para 18).
[16]
As
this Court has previously held that the standard of review applicable to a
citizenship judge’s determination of whether an applicant has satisfied the
residency requirement is reasonableness (Dunsmuir, above, at para 57; Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Salim, 2010 FC 975, [2010] FCJ
No 1219, at para 21 [Salim]; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v Elzubair, 2010 FC 298, [2010] FCJ No 330 at para 12 [Elzubair];
Paez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 204,
[2008] FCJ No 292 at para 11), a standard of review analysis is not required in
this case.
[17]
When reviewing a decision
on the standard of reasonableness, the analysis will be concerned with “the
existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility of the decision-making
process [and also with] whether the decision falls within a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law”
(see Dunsmuir, above, at para 47; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at para 59 [Khosa]).
Put otherwise, the Court should only intervene if the decision was unreasonable
in the sense that it falls outside the “range of possible, acceptable outcomes
which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law” (Dunsmuir,
above, at para 47).
(b) Were the Citizenship Judge’s Reasons Inadequate?
[18]
The
Applicant submits that the Citizenship Judge’s reasons are “sparse, and
inadequate” because they do not demonstrate that the Judge addressed the
statutory requirements set out in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act,
or that he understood and applied the relevant legal principles. The reasons
do not reveal the grounds upon which the application was approved, nor do they
demonstrate a meaningful analysis of the evidence. The Applicant notes that in Lai
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] FCJ No 1361, 188
FTR 113 at paras 11-12 [Lai], it was held that merely listing the
evidence that had been considered was insufficient and submits that the
Citizenship Judge in the present case did not even do that.
[19]
The
Respondent points to the Supreme Court’s decision in Newfoundland and
Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62,
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 708 at paras 13-14 [Newfoundland Nurses] and Baig v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 855, [2012] FCJ No 963 at
para 10 [Baig] and submits that adequacy of reasons is
no longer a stand-alone ground for allowing judicial review. Further, the
Respondent stresses that the ICES traveller history showed that the
Respondent did not leave Canada during the relevant period. Residency having
been established, the Citizenship Judge was only required to articulate the
evidence relied upon in reaching his decision, which he did. As such, the Decision
falls within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes and should not be
disturbed.
[20]
In
my view, ‘adequacy
of reasons’ is not a stand-alone ground of review. Rather, as noted by Justice Rennie
in Baig, above, at para
10, ‘adequacy of reasons’ forms part of the broader reasonableness analysis.
[21]
The
cases cited by the Applicant (Eltom v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1555, [2005] FCJ No 1979,
Abdollahi-Ghane v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 741, [2004] FCJ No 930,
and Lai, above) all pre-date the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2011 decision
in Newfoundland Nurses, above. There the Supreme Court referenced its
decision in Dunsmuir and stressed the notion of deference to
administrative decision-makers, even in cases where the reasons given for a
decision may not seem entirely adequate. The Court added that review of such
decisions was an “organic exercise” in which “the reasons must be read together
with the outcome and serve the purpose of showing whether the result falls
within a range of possible outcomes” (Newfoundland Nurses, above, at
paras 12-14).
[22]
The
adequacy of reasons of the Citizenship Judge is therefore considered in the
context of the reasonableness of the Decision as a whole.
(c) Was
the Citizenship Judge’s Decision to Approve Ms. Lee’s Citizenship Application
Reasonable?
Position
of the Parties
[23]
The
Applicant submits that the Citizenship Judge committed a reviewable error by
failing to indicate which residency test he used to assess the Respondent’s
residency and, regardless of the test used, that he failed to apply it
correctly. The Applicant submits that physical presence in Canada is a crucial factor in determining residency, and that “passive indicia” (such as depositing
money into a bank account) are insufficient.
[24]
The
Applicant also stresses that the onus is on applicants to establish that they
meet the residency requirements, adding that the mandatory Residence
Questionnaire provides clear instructions on the type of documentary evidence
required. The documentation provided by the Respondent contained deficiencies
and was insufficient to discharge that onus. As to the ICES record, the
Applicant submits that this does not, on its own, establish the Respondent’s residency
in Canada. Accordingly, the Citizenship Judge’s decision to approve her
citizenship application was unreasonable.
[25]
The
Respondent submits that the language of section 5 of the Citizenship Act
is mandatory and unambiguous: “The Minister shall grant citizenship” to anyone
who meets all of the requirements set out in that provision. The residency
requirement is contained in paragraph 5(1)(c). It requires an applicant to
have been resident in Canada for at least three of the past four years. In this
case the Citizenship Judge reviewed the ICES record and was satisfied that the
Respondent had not left Canada during the relevant period of May 8, 2006 to May
8, 2010. Given this, the Citizenship Judge had no reason to apply one of the
three residency tests that have been developed by this Court. And, as the
Respondent met all of the subsection 5(1) requirements for Canadian
citizenship, her application was properly approved.
[26]
Further,
that the jurisprudence confirms that a citizenship judge need only proceed to
apply of one of the residency tests if he or she is not convinced that the
applicant was physically present in Canada for the requisite 1,095 days (Elzubair,
above, at paras 13-14; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v El
Bousserghini, 2012 FC 88, [2012] FCJ No 106 at para 17 [El Bousserghini]; Salim,
above, at para 21; Koo (Re), [1993] 1 FC 286, [1992] FCJ No 1107 (TD)).
[27]
In
the alternative, the Respondent submits that even if the Citizenship Judge was
required to apply one of the residency tests, then it can be inferred that he
applied the most stringent physical presence, or, “strict counting of days”
test which, in the absence of analysis of other forms of attachment to Canada,
simply requires the applicant to prove that he or she has been physically
present in Canada for 1,095 of the past 1,460 days (Pourghasemi (Re),
[1993] FCJ No 232, 62 FTR 122 (TD). Moreover, the Citizenship Judge was not
required to explicitly reference the applicable test, rather, the reasons must
be read as a whole (Newfoundland Nurses, above; Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Hannoush, 2012 FC 945, [2012] FCJ No 1040
para 13 [Hannoush]; El-Khader v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2011 FC 328, [2011] FCJ No 426 at para 24). Here the
Citizenship Judge applied the strict physical presence test, set out the
evidence on which he relied and properly determined that the Respondent me the
test.
[28]
The
Respondent also points to this Court’s decision in Tanveer v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 565, [2010] FCJ No 677 [Tanveer],
where Justice Zinn held that even if certain evidence does not conclusively
prove that an applicant was present in Canada, it can serve to corroborate
their statements to that effect. In the present case, the ICES report
constitutes such corroborative evidence, it does not cast doubt on the
Respondent’s physical presence in Canada and it was both reasonable and
appropriate for the Citizenship Judge to rely upon it (Tanveer, above,
at para 11). The Respondent also submits that any inconsistencies in the
evidence are easily explained and are not relevant.
Reasons
[29]
For
the reasons that
follow, it is my view that the Citizenship Judge’s decision to approve the
Respondent’s citizenship application was reasonable and that this appeal should
be dismissed.
i) Residency
Test
[30]
The Citizenship Judge was not
required to expressly apply one of the residency tests. In Hannoush, above, at paras 11-13, Justice Harrington acknowledged this Court’s past
jurisprudence to the effect that a citizenship judge must identify the test
applied. However, referring to the Supreme Court of Canada’s more recent
decision in Newfoundland Nurses, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision
in SRI Homes Inc v Her Majesty the Queen, 2012 FCA 208, [2012] FCJ No
1000 [SRI Homes], as well as the Federal Court’s decisions in Elzubair,
Salim and Imran v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 756, [2012] FJ No 994, Justice Harrington concluded, at para 13, that:
… if the record shows that the
applicant claims to have been present here at least 1,095 days, and no analysis
has been done along the lines of the applicant’s heart being here although his
body was elsewhere, it is reasonable to infer that the physical presence test,
the most stringent one, was applied. It has been held now on a number of
occasions that once it is established that an applicant has been here for 1,095
days, it is not necessary to consider the other tests.
[31]
Also see this Court’s decision in El
Bousserghini, above, at para 17,
where Justice Harrington held that “[a]lthough
it is possible to analyze the residency conditions in light of Re Koo,
this analysis is unnecessary when the applicant is present in Canada for 1,095 days”.
[32]
This reasoning is also
consistent with the wording of section 5 of the Citizenship Act,
which states that “[t]he Minister shall grant citizenship” to persons who meet
the requisite criteria. A plain reading of the Citizenship Act suggests
that if a determination has been made that an individual has satisfied the
residency requirement under paragraph 5 (1)(c), then there is no reason to
apply a further ‘test’ as developed by the courts.
[33]
In
the present
case, there was no qualitative analysis of the Respondent’s attachment to Canada. Rather, in concluding that the Respondent satisfied the residency requirements
under paragraph 5 (1)(c) of the Act, the Citizenship Judge states that
he relied upon the documentary and verbal evidence, and “mostly on the strength
of the ICES report that shows no entries into Canada” during the relevant
period. In my view, in these circumstances it was not necessary for him go
further and apply one of the Court-developed residency tests and, even if it
were, it can reasonably be inferred that he applied the physical presence test.
ii)
Adequacy of Reasons
[34]
In his reasons, the Citizenship Judge stated that “after
very careful consideration of all of the documentary evidence along with the
verbal evidence presented at the hearing”, he was “satisfied that [the] applicant,
on the balance of probabilities, meets the requirements of 5(1)(c)” of the Citizenship
Act. The Citizenship Judge also stated that he based his decision “mostly
on the strength of the ICES report that shows no entries into Canada during [the] review period.” Taken together,
the extent and nature of this evidence satisfied him that the Respondent met
the residency requirements.
[35]
The
fact that the
Citizenship Judge’s reasons are brief does not suffice to impugn the Decision. As
stated in Newfoundland Nurses, above, at para 16, if the reasons allow
the reviewing court to understand why the tribunal made its decision and permit
it to determine whether the conclusion is within the range of acceptable
outcomes, then the Dunsmuir criteria are met. Put otherwise, when
reasons are required, they must, in the context of the record, show why the
judge decided as he or she did (SRI Homes; El Bousserghini).
[36]
Thus,
this case can be distinguished from Hannoush, where the Minister’s
appeal of the citizenship judge’s decision was allowed because no reasons were
given (at para 15); Elzubair due to the “complete failure to explain how he
reached his conclusion regarding the respondent's physical presence in Canada” (at para 16); and Salim, where the reasons were “far from clear” and did not
enable the Minister to know the basis of the decision (at para 23).
[37]
The
Citizenship Judge’s reasons in the present case do explain, albeit briefly, the
basis for his Decision. He was not
required to set out in his reasons the whole of the analysis behind the
Decision; he was only required to provide sufficient grounds that allow this
Court, sitting in review, to understand why he reached that decision and to
assess its reasonableness.
[38]
Here, the ICES report appears to have formed the main
basis for the Decision. The Applicant asserts that in and of itself the ICES
report does not establish the Respondent’s residency during the relevant
four-year period. Although this may be correct, the report at least corroborates
the Respondent’s statement that she has not left Canada during the relevant
period. Further, it does not cast doubt on any of her evidence or declarations
(Tanveer, above, at para 11). As this Court stated in El Bousserghini,
above, at para 19, the Citizenship Act “does not require corroboration.
It is the responsibility of the original decision-maker, taking the context
into consideration, to determine the extent and nature of the evidence required”.
[39]
In that regard, the Applicant asserts that the Citizenship Judge
ignored or failed to analyze apparent evidentiary deficiencies as to the
Respondent’s presence in Canada, i.e. the extent and nature of the evidence
required, and because there is no explanation as to how he dealt with that
evidence, the Decision was unreasonable.
[40]
The
alleged deficiencies in the
Respondent’s evidence identified by the Applicant include that:
-
she
failed to provide satisfactory identification documents, specifically, photo
identity documents as she submitted only her old passport from Trinidad &
Tobago, which expired in 1985;
-
the
signature on her passport differs from that in her citizenship application;
-
she
only obtained a health card and driver’s licence with photo in July 2011, i.e. after
the relevant residency period, May 8, 2006 to May 8, 2010 (in this regard I
note that although the Applicant refers to a driver’s license being issued to
the Respondent by the Province of Ontario, what was actually issued was a photo
identification card);
-
her
evidence was inconsistent. For example:
o She claimed to have
visited medical clinics, but there were no records of these visits in her OHIP
summary;
o She claimed to take
public transit but provided no proof of a monthly pass;
o She claimed to be
working at times when she would have been pregnant and giving birth to her
children;
-
her
tax assessments for 2006-08 show no income;
-
her
name did not appear on some of the bills provided, or the bills post-dated the
relevant residency period.
[41]
It must be noted that in her letter that accompanied her May
8, 2010 citizenship application, the Respondent explained why she was unable to
provide photo identification at that time, she had been a home maker who had
not left Canada for many years and had no need to acquire such identification.
The File Referral Sheet prepared by the citizenship officer who interviewed the
Respondent on July 7, 2011 notes that she was asked why she was applying for
citizenship now. Her response was recorded as “no money, not intending to
travel therefore no need for photo I.D. Now may wish to travel.” Subsequent to
that interview, the Respondent was again asked to provide two pieces of valid
provincial identification, one to have photo identification such as a valid Ontario driver’s licence and OHIP card. She was also asked to provide “[a]ll
pages of all passports… (both valid, expired and cancelled passports)” for 2006
to date.
[42]
Faced with
this request, the Respondent obtained and submitted an Ontario photo
identification card and a new Ontario Health card. While it is true that these
were issued after the relevant residency period, these documents were primarily
aimed at establishing her identity, not her residency. Further, she
cannot be faulted for providing an expired passport, as requested, but not
having obtained a new one. As
to the difference between the Respondent’s signature as a 19-year-old in her
1975 passport and her signature as a 56-year-old in her citizenship
application, it is unsurprising that in a thirty-five year time span her
signature changed. It is also of note
that the Decision indicates that the Respondent passed both the RCMP and CSIS
reviews.
[43]
The February 10, 2012 letter of the Citizenship Judge
issued after he met with the Respondent and requesting additional documents
“[i]n order to assess your residence information”, stated that she should send
her ICES record, a record of exit/entry from Trinidad “OR” a letter confirming
that no other passports had been issued to her. The Respondent provided the
ICES report. Even if it is accepted that the request was somewhat ambiguous
(due to the placement of the word “OR” on the page), and that the Respondent
was actually being asked to provide more documentation, it was the Citizenship
Judge who requested that information and who determined that the ICES report
was satisfactory evidence of the Respondent’s residence in Canada.
[44]
As to the inconsistent
evidence, the record before the Citizenship Judge contained a December 29, 2011
email from the citizenship officer who interviewed the Respondent on
July 7, 2010 because of her lack of photo identification. In that
email, the officer states that she is sending the Respondent to a hearing
before a citizenship judge with a recommendation that the judge request further
documentation. One of her stated concerns was that the Respondent “Takes TTc
everyday, yet, never purchased a TTC pass”. However, the officer’s December
29, 2011 FOSS notes state that she “suggested if subj takes TTC, perhaps she
could give us a copy of her previous TTC monthly pass photo; subj then said “I
don’t travel by TTC every day, never purchased any TTC passes”. And, in the
officer’s hand written File Referral Sheet for the July 7, 2011 meeting, she
records “Don’t travel TTC everyday, never purchased TTC pass”. Given this, in
my view, there was no inconsistency in the Respondent’s evidence on this point
and it was not unreasonable for the Citizenship Judge to accept the explanation
which the Respondent had previously given to the citizenship officer.
[45]
Similarly, the fact
that she reported no income for 2006-08 does not necessarily undermine her
credibility as to her identity or residency, particularly as she was a
homemaker and had no income to report. The Applicant takes issue with the fact
that the Respondent’s 2006, 2007 and 2008 income tax returns are all dated
January 18, 2010. The fact remains that they were provided as requested and
are dated within the relevant residency period.
[46]
In submissions by her
counsel before me and in her supporting Affidavit, the Respondent acknowledged
that her evidence concerning the dates of her prior work history was in error.
She attributes this to her faulty memory given that the events referred to
occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s. She also acknowledged that she was in
error in her statement that she had remained in Canada since she first arrived
34 years ago. While she reported two absences there were actually four which
occurred in 1978, 1979, 1981 and 1984, being short trips to the United States and two trips to Trinidad & Tobago in November. These are outside the
relevant residency period and the error is again attributed to the impact of
the passage of time on the Respondent’s memory. In any event, the error does
not undermine the reasonableness of the Citizenship Judge’s Decision, which was
concerned with the May 2006 - May 2010 residency period.
[47]
As to the lack of OHIP
medical records or the fact that her name does not appear on certain bills, the
role of the Citizenship Judge was to determine
the extent and nature of the evidence required and to assess and weigh this evidence in the context
of the entire application. He had been
alerted to the citizenship officer’s concerns, yet having met with the
Respondent and having requested and received further documentation, he was
satisfied that the Respondent’s identity was not at issue.
[48]
In my view, to quash the Decision on the grounds that the
Citizenship Judge gave too much weight to the ICES report and not enough weight
to the inconsistencies in the evidence would not align with the Supreme Court
of Canada’s decision in Khosa, which held that reviewing courts are not
to reweigh the evidence that was before a decision-maker (at para 61) and that
deference is owed to administrative decision-makers (at para 25).
Conclusion
[49]
Although the Citizenship
Judge’s reasons could certainly have been more detailed, that alone is not a
sufficient basis to allow the appeal. Rather, the question is whether his
reasons allow this Court to understand why he made the Decision and permit a
determination of whether his conclusion falls within the range of acceptable
outcomes.
[50]
The
Citizenship Judge stated that based on his review of the verbal and documentary
evidence, in particular the ICES report, the Respondent met the residency
requirements. Thus he explained why the residency requirement had been met and
why the citizenship application was granted. The evidence on the record before
him as to the Respondent’s residency during the relevant period was supported
by the ICES record. The Respondent’s evidence in that regard did not require
corroboration and it was not contradicted by any other evidence. As to her
identity, the Citizenship Judge interviewed the Respondent and reviewed the
identity documentation that she provided. Given this, and considering the CSIS
and RCMP reviews, it was not unreasonable to accept the sufficiency of this
evidence.
[51]
While
in this case the existence of justification of the decision-making process is
relatively limited, it is transparent and intelligible and, based on the record
before him, the Citizenship Judge’s Decision does fall within a range of
possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and
the law. For that reason the citizenship appeal is denied.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the appeal is dismissed. No question of
general importance for certification has been proposed and none arises. There
is no order as to costs.
“Cecily Y. Strickland”
Email this Content