Docket: T-693-15
Citation:
2015 FC 1363
Ottawa, Ontario, December 9, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
SUNG HOON GOO
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Pursuant to section 22.1 of the Citizenship
Act, RSC 1985, C-29, as amended [the Act], the applicant, the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, asks the Court to set aside the decision of a
citizenship judge, dated April 2, 2015, that approved the citizenship
application of the respondent, Sung Hoon Goo, pursuant to subsection 5(1) of
the Act. The application is being heard concurrently with the application to
set aside the decision relating to the respondent’s wife, Hye Young Lee.
I.
Facts
[2]
Mr. Sung Hoon Goo [the respondent] is a citizen
of South Korea. He was granted permanent residence in Canada on May 24, 2005.
[3]
The respondent applied for citizenship on
October 28, 2009.
[4]
The respondent alleges that in the four years
preceding the application for citizenship (the relevant period between October
28, 2005 and October 28, 2009), he has been residing in Canada and been
physically present in Canada, apart from short visits to the United States and
South Korea. The respondent alleges that during the relevant period, he and his
wife had identical travel itineraries. The respondent worked as a freelance
translator and web designer during the relevant period.
[5]
An officer of Citizenship and Immigration Canada
[the reviewing officer] reviewed the respondent’s application, prepared a “File Preparation and Analysis Template” and
recommended a hearing. The reviewing officer noted various deficiencies in the
documentation: the place of issue was not indicated on the respondent’s
passports; there was no supporting documentation of the respondent’s attendance
at ESL classes; the evidence of the respondent’s children’s attendance at
school was incomplete (it did not include every semester in the relevant
period); there was incomplete income tax information presented as evidence of
employment; the respondent’s home ownership was not documented; the passports
were missing re-entry stamps; the documentation provided as an indicator of
residence was mostly passive; and there was no supporting documentation of the
respondent’s self-employment as a translator and web designer.
[6]
The respondent attended a hearing before the
citizenship judge on March 23, 2015. He recounts in his affidavit that the
citizenship judge questioned him regarding most of the reviewing officer’s
concerns and he provided explanations. There is no transcript of the hearing on
the record.
II.
Issue
[7]
The applicant raises the issue that the
citizenship judge’s reasons are not sufficient because they do not allow the
Court to understand how the judge reached his decision.
III.
Decision
[8]
In a decision dated April 2, 2015, the
citizenship judge found that the respondent meets the residence requirement
under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act and approved his application for
citizenship. The decision for the respondent is almost identical to that for
his wife, with the exception of the analysis of their respective business
activities and travel outside of Canada.
[9]
The citizenship judge noted that the respondent
had declared 1,407 days of presence and 53 days of absence in the relevant
period. The citizenship judge noted that there were concerns regarding the
credibility of the respondent because of discrepancies between the declared
absences in the application form and residency questionnaire and a lack of
documentation related to his business activity.
[10]
Under the heading, “Facts”,
the citizenship judge explained that during the interview, the respondent
explained that he had mistakenly left out trips to the United States in 2006
from his residency questionnaire, but that the correct list of absences was the
one presented in the application form. The citizenship judge explained that
there was an undeclared entry stamp to the United States in the respondent’s
passport on March 13, 2006; however, this entry was included in the respondent’s
list of absences in the application form.
[11]
On the issue of his business activities, the
citizenship judge noted that there are a few positive indicators of his
business activity. He confirmed at the hearing that he is a professional
translator and receives work through email. He provided copies of these emails.
[12]
On the issue of travel to the United States, the
citizenship judge noted that he had reviewed the “ICES Traveller History” report,
which revealed an additional undeclared re-entry stamp on March 18, 2009.
However, the citizenship judge found that, because his last exit from Canada
was on December 20, 2008, even if he had been absent from December 2008 to
March 2009, he would still have been present in Canada for 1,317 days, which is
higher than the minimum of 1,095 days.
[13]
The citizenship judge stated that he applied the
residency test set out in Pourghasemi (Re), [1993] FCJ No 232 (TD) [Pourghasemi].
He explained that the respondent bears the burden of proving that he meets the
residency requirements. He found that there were not valid elements to dispute
the respondent's statements regarding his days of physical presence in Canada.
IV.
Applicant’s Written Submissions
[14]
The applicant submits that an applicant for
citizenship bears the onus of providing sufficient objective evidence to
demonstrate that the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act are met. The
applicant argues that the evidence before the citizenship judge was not
sufficient to establish that the respondent had met the requirements set out in
paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act.
[15]
In particular, the applicant argues that the citizenship
judge failed to account for the concerns that the reviewing officer noted in
the application. The citizenship judge did not address: that the respondent’s
passport is missing re-entry stamps to Canada for the declared absences; that
only two of the respondent’s ten declared absences were verified in their
entirety; how he was able to conclude that the respondent was physically
present in Canada for 1,095 days; that the respondent’s passport does not
indicate its place of issue; that the respondent provided mostly passive
indicators of residence; that the declared absences were not accompanied by
reasons for the absences; that there was no supporting documentation to support
that the respondent attended ESL classes; the inconsistency between the respondent
taking ESL classes and working as a translator; that only limited evidence of
the respondent’s children’s education was provided (i.e., no end-of-year report
cards were provided); and the inconsistency between the application form and
residency questionnaire regarding whether the respondent is the president of a
South Korean company. There is only a limited discussion of the evidence
provided to support the respondent’s business activities and no discussion of
his failure to provide income tax information for the relevant period.
[16]
The applicant submits that, in light of the
record before the citizenship judge, the reasons are not clear, precise and
intelligible. They do not allow a reviewing court to understand why the
decision was made or whether the conclusion falls within a range of reasonable
outcomes (Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and
Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at paragraph 16 [Newfoundland
Nurses]). The reasons simply state that the residency requirements were
met, but do not explain how this finding was made in light of the above-noted
discrepancies and deficiencies in the evidence.
[17]
In reply, the applicant also submits that it is
not proper for the respondent to proffer affidavit evidence that supplements
the reasons of the decision-maker to address shortcomings of the decision. The
applicant submits that this is analogous to situations where the Minister
proffers affidavit evidence from the decision-maker, as the respondent, to
address shortcomings in the decision.
V.
Respondent’s Written Submissions
[18]
The respondent submits that the decision of a citizenship
judge to find that an applicant meets the residence requirement is entitled to
a high degree of deference (Al-Askari v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2015 FC 623 at paragraphs 18 and 19; Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Patmore, 2015 FC 699 at paragraphs 14 and 24).
[19]
The respondent submits that the Court should not
re-weigh evidence of residency. Residency is a factual finding, can be
interpreted in a range of different ways and this interpretation is within the
purview of the citizenship judge (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v Anderson, 2010 FC 748 at paragraph 26 [Anderson]; Khalfallah
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1132 at paragraph
23).
[20]
The respondent submits that the reasons do not
need to be perfect, as long as there is a reasonable basis for the decision (Newfoundland
Nurses at paragraph 12; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
v Lee, 2013 FC 270 at paragraphs 48 to 51; Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Sadek, 2009 FC 549 at paragraphs 15 to 19).
If it is apparent that the Minister considered the totality of the facts, the
Court should not intervene (Anderson at paragraph 21).
[21]
The respondent submits that there was sufficient
evidence before the citizenship judge to allow the citizenship judge to
reasonably conclude that the residence requirement was met. In particular, the
respondent provided:
i.
For 2005, doctor’s letters indicating that the
respondent, his wife and his daughter had visited that year; report cards
indicating his son was enrolled in school that year; a Rogers bill from one
month of that year; and a utility bill from several months of that year.
ii.
For 2006, a notice of assessment; a doctor’s
letter indicating that his daughter had visited that year; a tax bill
indicating home ownership; a letter confirming insurance coverage; report cards
indicating his son and daughter were enrolled in school that year; and a
receipt confirming a charitable donation in Canada that year.
iii.
For 2007, doctor’s letters indicating that the
respondent had visited twice and his wife had visited twice; a letter confirming
insurance coverage; report cards indicating his son and daughter were enrolled
in school that year; bank statements for two months of that year; a Bell bill
for one month of that year; and a utility bill for several months of that year.
iv.
For 2008, a Canada Revenue Agency letter
indicating he was eligible for a tax credit; a doctor’s letter indicating that
his son had visited that year; a letter confirming insurance coverage; a letter
confirming an insurance claim for a car accident that year; a report card
indicating his son was enrolled in school that year; a school report of
absences indicating his daughter was enrolled in school that year; bank
statements for three months of that year; a letter confirming family membership
at the YMCA that year; a property assessment notice for that year; and utility
bills for several months of that year.
v.
For 2009, correspondence from CRA to a Canadian
address; a letter from CRA confirming child tax benefits received that year; a
doctor’s letter indicating that the respondent had visited, his wife had
visited twice, his daughter had visited and his son had visited four times that
year; a tax bill showing home ownership; a report card showing his son was
enrolled in school; bank statements for three months of that year; a credit
card statement for one month of that year; a letter confirming family membership
at the YMCA that year; Rogers and Bell bills for two months of that year; and
utility bills for that year.
[22]
The respondent also submits that he is entitled
to the presumption of truth, given that he and his wife confirmed their travel
history under oath at the hearing and there is no substantially contradictory
evidence (Westmore v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2012 FC 1023 at paragraph 44).
[23]
The respondent further submits that the concerns
set out in the reviewing officer’s memorandum, relied on by the applicant, were
either unreasonable or addressed by the citizenship judge.
[24]
Regarding the concern that the citizenship judge
did not explain how he was able to conclude that the respondent was physically
present in Canada for 1,095 days, the respondent submits that he and his wife’s
testimony is entitled to the presumption of truth and there was no objective
evidence indicating that they did not meet the residency requirements.
[25]
Regarding the lack of re-entry stamps to Canada,
the respondent and his wife explained under oath that Canadian officials had
not stamped their passports upon re-entry. The Court has recognized that CBSA does
not keep complete records of entry into Canada and this is beyond the control
of applicants (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Purvis,
2015 FC 368 at paragraphs 37 to 39 [Purvis]).
[26]
Regarding the location where the respondent
renewed his passport, the respondent submits that the passport does not
indicate where it was issued and the respondent and his wife confirmed to the citizenship
judge that it was obtained from the South Korean Consulate in Canada.
[27]
Regarding the concern that the respondent
provided primarily passive indicators of residence, the respondent submits that
this concern is not reasonable in light of the evidence that he and his family
were physically present in Canada, as set out above.
[28]
Regarding the concern that the respondent did
not provide supporting documents relating to his employment, the respondent
submits that he provided numerous emails and plausibly explained that his work
was assigned remotely.
[29]
Regarding the concern that the respondent did
not provide income tax documentation, the respondent did provide documents that
proved he made payments and received refunds in the relevant period, which
proves his income was reported. He and his wife also stated under oath that
their income was reported. Moreover, this was not a significant factor to the citizenship
judge.
[30]
Regarding the concern that the respondent
generated business activity in the United States and may have travelled to the
United States for business purposes. His application and residency
questionnaire do not declare the reasons for travel. The respondent and his
spouse addressed this concern at the hearing. They stated that the visits were
for family trips, not business. The respondent confirmed that all his work was
done remotely.
[31]
Regarding the lack of documentation for the ESL
course the respondent and his spouse attended, they reasonably explained at the
hearing that they did not complete the course and therefore did not receive a
certificate. Regarding the fact that there was inconsistent information provided
relating to the months of attendance in ESL courses, the respondent submits
that this minor inconsistency would not provide a reasonable basis for
rejecting the respondent’s application for citizenship (Purvis at paragraphs
37 to 39).
[32]
Regarding the concern that the respondent worked
as a translator but also attended ESL classes, the respondent submits that he
reasonably explained to the citizenship judge that he wished to improve his
spoken English.
[33]
Regarding the incomplete information regarding
the respondent’s children’s schooling, the respondent submits that this would
not provide a reasonable basis for rejecting the application. It was reasonable
for the citizenship judge to conclude that the children were in school for the
years for which some report cards were provided, given that it is unlikely and
unsupported by the evidence that they would be in and out of school in Canada.
Moreover, the citizenship judge reasonably accepted the explanation that these
were the only school records the family could find at the date of the
application.
[34]
Regarding the concern about the inconsistency
between the application form and residency questionnaire regarding whether the
respondent was a president of a company in South Korea, the respondent
acknowledges the inconsistency. He states that the citizenship judge did not
question him regarding this inconsistency. The respondent explains that he
incorrectly stated that the company existed in 2011 in his application and the
company actually wound down in 2006. He submits that it was open to the citizenship
judge to accept that he met the residency requirement despite this
inconsistency.
VI.
Analysis and Decision
[35]
Given that the citizenship judge applied the
quantitative test from Pourghasemi, the burden was on the respondent to
establish with clear and compelling evidence the number of days he was
physically present in Canada (Abbas v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2011 FC 145 at paragraph 8). As the citizenship judge applied
one of the acceptable tests, the standard or review for the remaining parts of
the decision is reasonableness.
[36]
In a recent case, Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Abdulghafoor, 2015 FC 1020 [Abdulghafoor],
Mr. Justice Denis Gascon provided a summary of the case law on the sufficiency
of reasons in the context of a decision by a citizenship judge:
[31] The decision-maker is not required
to refer to each and every detail supporting his or her conclusion. It is
sufficient if the reasons permit the Court to understand why the decision was
made and determine whether the conclusion falls within the range of possible
acceptable outcomes (Newfoundland Nurses at para 16). The reasons are to
be read as a whole, in conjunction with the record, in order to determine
whether the reasons provide the justification, transparency and intelligibility
required of a reasonable decision (Dunsmuir at para 47; Agraira v
Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at para 53; Construction
Labour Relations v Driver Iron Inc., 2012 SCC 65 at para 3). This Court
discussed the issue of adequacy of reasons in a citizenship judge’s decision in
the recent Safi decision. In that decision, Justice Kane echoed the Newfoundland
Nurses principles and stated that the decision-maker is not required to set
out every reason, argument or detail in the reasons, or to make an explicit
finding on each element that leads to the final conclusion. The reasons are to “be
read together with the outcome and serve the purpose of showing whether the
result falls within a range of possible outcomes” (Safi at para 17).
[32] In this case, the citizenship
judge’s decision meets this standard; the reasons explain why he decided that
Mr. Abdulghafoor met the residency requirement and how he considered the
evidence.
[33] Reasonableness, not perfection, is
the standard. In citizenship matters, reasons for decision are often very brief
and do not always address all discrepancies in the evidence. However, even
where the reasons for the decision are brief, or poorly written, this Court should
defer to the decision-maker’s weighing of the evidence and credibility
determinations, as long as the Court is able to understand why the citizenship
judge made its decision (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.
Thomas, 2015 FC 288 at para 34 [Thomas]; Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Purvis, 2015 FC 368 at paras 24-25).
[34] In Thomas, for example, the
citizenship judge found that the respondent was credible, addressed the
citizenship officer’s concerns and accepted the respondent’s explanations. In
response to the Minister’s argument that there was insufficient evidence,
Justice Mosley noted that “although the notes could have been clearer and more
thorough, the ultimate decision rested on a reasonable assessment of the
evidence, including the explanations provided by [the respondent]” (at para
34). Justice Mosley pointed out that the case did not contain unexplained gaps
in the evidence, as the respondent had provided explanations that the
citizenship judge found credible. Justice Mosley reminded that the Court must
defer to the decision-maker’s weighing of the evidence and credibility
determination in absence of clear error (Thomas at paras 33-34).
…
[36] The present case is different. The
citizenship judge identified the residency test he relied on and addressed the
credibility concerns raised by the citizenship officer; there were no gaps in
evidence or periods unaccounted for. I conclude that the reasons are sufficient
and adequate with regard to the test established by Newfoundland Nurses.
I am able to understand the citizenship judge’s reasoning and to understand
which factors and evidence led him to be satisfied that Mr. Abdulghafoor had
been in Canada for the requisite number of days.
[37]
In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v Suleiman, 2015 FC 891 [Suleiman], Justice Gascon
provides a useful summary and commentary on the use of the record in the
reasonableness analysis and the use of a citizenship applicant’s affidavit
where no transcript of the hearing is available in the review of decisions by
citizenship judges:
[23] A decision-maker like a
citizenship judge is deemed to have considered all the evidence on the record (Hassan
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1992] FCJ No 946 (FCA)
at para 3). A failure to mention an element of evidence does not mean that it
was ignored or that there was a reviewable error. In this case, the judge has
also had the benefit of a long hearing with Mr. Suleiman, for which there is no
transcript to contradict the evidence on the record or the affidavit filed by
Mr. Suleiman. The decision of the citizenship judge evidently took into account
the oral evidence provided by Mr. Suleiman. A review of the decision shows that
the judge found the following:
Mr. Suleiman terminated his
employment in Dubai at the beginning of 2005 and returned to Canada in March
2005, after finalizing his affairs in Dubai;
Mr. Suleiman left Canada only twice
since March 2005 for short visits to Dubai to see his family;
Mr. Suleiman had places of residence
in Canada when he returned to Canada in 2005 and throughout the period of
reference, first with his cousin and afterwards in an apartment owned by his
brother;
Mr. Suleiman had not travelled
outside of Canada other than for his declared absences;
There were satisfactory explanations
for the absence of Canadian re-entry stamps on Mr. Suleiman’s passport, the
alleged “25 May 2005” stamp date and the UAE residence visa in Mr. Suleiman’s
passport.
[24] In view of these elements, it was
reasonable for the citizenship judge to conclude that Mr. Suleiman met the
residency requirement. I further note that this is not a situation where Mr.
Suleiman was close to the minimum number of days required to meet the physical
test of residence; even with some minor discrepancies in the evidence relating
to some travel dates, he was well above the 1095 day threshold.
…
[27] The Minister is right to point out
that there remains at all times a positive obligation on the citizenship
applicants to provide true, correct, and complete information and to refrain
from making false declarations. This however does not mean that corroborative
evidence is required on every single element. It is well recognized that the Citizenship
Act does not require corroboration on all counts; instead, it is “the
responsibility of the original decision-maker, taking the context into
consideration, to determine the extent and nature of the evidence required” (Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v El Bousserghini, 2012 FC 88 at
para 19 [El Bousserghini]). The citizenship judge may not have
reconciled the apparent discrepancy as clearly as the Minister would have liked
to see it in his reasons, or explained in as much detail as the Minister would
have hoped how Mr. Suleiman convinced the judge that the discrepancy did not
harm his credibility. But there is nothing to indicate that the judge’s finding
on Mr. Suleiman’s return to Canada prior to the beginning of the reference
period was not reasonable.
[38]
I note that the Court rarely intervenes unless
there are significant unaddressed inadequacies which make it impossible to
determine how the citizenship judge weighed the evidence such as contradictions
between the decision and the record.
[39]
Although the citizenship judge’s decision may
not have explained in as great a detail the errors alleged by the Minister, or
was not as clear as the Minister believed it should be, I am of the view that
the decision was reasonable when it is read with the record. I am satisfied that
the decision allows a reader to understand why the decision was made.
[40]
The citizenship judge applied the test from Pourghasemi.
As a result, the quantitative analysis of the number of days that the
respondent was physically present in Canada was central. The citizenship judge
addressed most of the evidence and gaps relating to the respondent’s travel
from Canada (when he would not be physically present in Canada): the
application form, the residency questionnaire, the passport stamps and the ICES
report. It is clear that the citizenship judge accepted the respondent’s travel
history and related days that he was physically present in Canada, as credible.
[41]
The citizenship judge is presumed to have
considered all of the evidence (Suleiman at pargraph 23). In my opinion,
the gaps in the evidence that are noted by the applicant and that were not
specifically addressed by the citizenship judge do not likely reveal anything
that would make it impossible to determine how the citizenship judge came to
his conclusion:
- Lack of
re-entry stamps: The respondent’s affidavit
indicates that he stated at the hearing that the passports were not stamped
by Canadian officials. Like in Suleiman, this information is not
contradicted and there is nothing to suggest that the citizenship judge
did not take this explanation into account (at paragraph 23).
- Only two
of the respondent’s ten declared absences were verified in their entirety: The decision indicates that he found the respondent’s record
of absences to be credible. Suleiman provides that corroborative
evidence is not required on every single element of a citizenship decision
(at paragraph 27).
- How the citizenship
judge was able to conclude that the respondent was physically present in
Canada for 1,095 days: The decision indicates
that the respondent’s record of absences was found to be credible. The citizenship
judge clearly turned his mind to the number of days the respondent was
absent (calculated from the travel dates), because he indicated that, in
case an omitted passport stamp was a longer trip to the United States, the
respondent still met the criteria of being physically present in Canada
for 1,095 days.
- It cannot
be ascertained where the respondent renewed his passport: The respondent explains that he stated at the hearing that he
received it from the Consulate and this evidence is not contradicted. Like
in Suleiman, there is nothing to suggest that the citizenship judge
did not take this into account (at paragraph 23).
- Failure
to address that the respondent provided mostly passive indicators of
residence and the declared absences were not accompanied by reasons for
the absences: There is nothing to indicate
that the citizenship judge did not consider this evidence and he states
that he considered all of the evidence. Moreover, the respondent’s
affidavit states that the citizenship judge requested additional evidence
in response to the concerns raised by the reviewing officer and the
respondent provided this evidence, proof of the self-employment activity
and doctor’s visits.
- Evidence
relating to ESL classes: There is nothing to
suggest that the citizenship judge did not consider the evidence relating
to ESL classes. Moreover, whether the respondent attended ESL classes
would be unlikely to be dispositive of the application.
- Limited
evidence of children’s education: There is
nothing to suggest that the citizenship judge did not consider the
evidence of the children’s education. The respondent’s affidavit provides
that he stated at the hearing that these were the report cards they could
find.
- Failure
to address the inconsistency between the application form and the
residency questionnaire relating to the respondent’s claim to be the president
of a South Korean company: In my view, this is
the most significant inconsistency in the evidence. It seems to be the
unlikely subject of a “typo” and likely should have alerted the citizenship
judge to probe further (Safi at paragraph 45). However, I am not
convinced that the failure to address this inconsistency, which may not
even relate to the respondent’s physical presence in Canada, renders the
decision unreasonable.
- Limited
discussion of the evidence provided to support the respondent’s business
activities and no discussion of his failure to provide income tax
information: There is nothing to indicate that
the citizenship judge did not consider this and he states that he
considered all of the evidence. The respondent recounts in his affidavit
that the citizenship judge noted at the hearing that income tax returns do
not necessarily prove residency and did not request them, but they could
have been provided. However, I note that the above-noted inconsistency in
whether the respondent is a president of a South Korean company might
alert the citizenship judge to probe further regarding the respondent’s
income in Canada (Safi at paragraph 45).
[42]
I note that unlike in Suleiman, which I
rely on above, the citizenship judge did not specifically refer to the
reviewing officer’s concerns in his decision. However, he does generally note
the credibility concerns and deficient evidence in the respondent’s application
at the beginning of the decision.
[43]
It is not disputed that when the Minister is the
respondent in a matter, it is not proper for the Minister to submit affidavit
evidence from the decision maker to address shortcomings in the decision. That,
however, is not what happened in the present case. The respondent, who was the
applicant at the citizenship hearing, is offering the affidavit evidence, not
the decision maker. There was no transcript of the hearing and the affidavit
evidence relates to the evidence the citizenship judge considered. This Court
has accepted this type of affidavit evidence in the absence of a transcript of
the hearing before a citizenship judge.
[44]
For the above reasons, I am of the view that the
decision of the citizenship judge was reasonable and the application for
judicial review must be dismissed.
[45]
Neither party wished to submit a proposed
serious question of general importance for my consideration for certification.
Email this Content