Docket: T-1761-15
Citation:
2016 FC 497
Ottawa, Ontario, May 9, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
AMRITPAL SINGH
PAWAR
|
|
Respondent
|
AMENDED JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Irrespective of the test employed by a
Citizenship Judge, whether it be the quantitative or the qualitative test, the
burden is on a citizenship applicant to establish, with clear and compelling
evidence, the number of days of residence in Canada during the reference period
(Atwani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1354 at para 12
[Atwani]).
II.
Background
[2]
This is an application for judicial review of a
decision, dated September 23, 2015, wherein a Citizenship Judge approved
the Respondent’s citizenship application.
[3]
The Respondent, Amritpal Singh Pawar (age 60),
is a citizen of India and he obtained his permanent residence in Canada upon
arrival in Canada on March 7, 2003. The Respondent was sponsored by his
then wife. In 2005, the couple separated.
[4]
On March 18, 2008, the Respondent applied
for Canadian citizenship; thus, the reference period is from March 18,
2004 to March 18, 2008. During the reference period of 1,460 days, the
Respondent declared 1,105 days of physical presence in Canada and 355 days of
absences from Canada. The threshold, as it was then, as provided by paragraph
5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C‑29, was 1,095
days of residence in Canada during a four year reference period.
[5]
On July 28, 2015, the Respondent appeared
before the Citizenship Judge for a hearing; and, in a decision dated September 23,
2015, the Citizenship Judge approved the Respondent’s citizenship application.
III.
Impugned Decision
[6]
The Citizenship Judge relied on the quantitative
test set-out in Pourghasemi (Re), [1993] FCJ No 232, to find that on the
balance of probabilities, the Respondent met the residence requirement of 1,095
days during the reference period. In his reasons, the Citizenship Judge
mentioned the concerns of the Citizenship Officer who reviewed the case: i) the
total number of absences cannot be calculated as there appear to be undeclared
absences; ii) discrepancies regarding the Respondent’s salary in the employment
letters and his Notice of Assessment; and, iii) the majority of the documents
provided by the Respondent are but passive indicators (see paragraph 14 of the
Decision, Applicant’s Record at page 8).
[7]
Subsequently, the Citizenship Judge considered
these concerns. Firstly, he was satisfied after reviewing the stamps in the
Respondent’s passport and the ICES report, itself, that no evidence of
undeclared absences had affected the Applicant’s meeting the residency
requirements. Secondly, the Citizenship Judge was satisfied as per the
Respondent’s explanations as provided during the hearing that the discrepancies
regarding his salary were due to his accountant’s advice, who had advised the
Applicant that as an independent contractor his expenses were to be deducted
from his revenue. Thirdly, the Citizenship Judge was of the opinion that even
if the Respondent provided a limited number of documents, certain of these
documents were, in and of themselves, active indicators of the Applicant’s
presence in Canada, such as the employment letters (tax documents and whether
self-employed or otherwise). Consequently, the Citizenship Judge held that on
the balance of probabilities, the Respondent demonstrated that he met the
residency requirements.
IV.
Issues
[8]
The Applicant submits the following issues to be
considered by the Court:
1)
Did the Citizenship Judge err in considering the
evidence?
2)
Do the Citizenship Judge’s reasons lack clarity,
precision and intelligibility?
V.
Standard of Review
[9]
The reasonableness standard is applicable to
determinations by a Citizenship Judge in respect of questions of mixed fact and
law (see Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Rahman, 2013 FC 1274 at
paras 11-14). Consequently, this Court should not intervene unless the decision
falls outside the range of possible, acceptable outcomes, or does not accord
with the principles of justification, transparency and intelligibility (Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para 47).
VI.
Analysis
[10]
The Applicant submits that the Citizenship Judge
erred by finding that the Respondent met the residency requirements despite of
the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating the Respondent’s physical
presence in Canada. Conversely, the Respondent submits that the Citizenship
Judge’s decision is reasonable as the Citizenship Judge reasonably assessed the
evidence. The Citizenship Judge had before him all the evidence provided by the
Respondent and had the opportunity of hearing him; as such, the Citizenship
Judge reasonably concluded that there is no reason to doubt the Respondent’s
credibility.
[11]
Irrespective of the test employed by a Citizenship
Judge, whether it be the quantitative or the qualitative test, the burden is on
a citizenship applicant to establish, with clear and compelling evidence, the
number of days of residence in Canada during the reference period (Atwani,
above at para 12).
[12]
According to the Respondent’s submissions, he
was ten days over the threshold of 1,095 days required for his citizenship
application to be approved. The record demonstrates that the Respondent failed
to declare, what it appears to be, one-day trips to the United States. He
further declared being in Canada on days that it would have been logistically
impossible for him to be in Canada, such as declaring arriving in India (within
calculated time factors, as to time zone differences), the same day as he left
Canada. Subsequently, the Citizenship Judge stated that the employment letters
were active indicators of the Respondent’s presence in Canada; but, as
submitted by the Applicant, it appears that the first employment letter is only
for the period of June 2006 to October 2006; and, the second employment letter
covers a period of time outside the actual reference period. Hence, the letters
remain of limited assistance to the Respondent.
[13]
Given that the Respondent was only ten days
above the threshold, factual determinations regarding discrepancies could be of
material consequences to the Respondent’s application for citizenship.
Cognizant that significant deference is owed to the factual determination of
the Citizenship Judge; a Citizenship Judge must nonetheless “turn his mind to the question of whether omissions and
contradictions in the evidence undermine the credibility of an individual”
(Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vijayan, 2015 FC 289 at para
65). It appears from the file that the Citizenship Judge did turn his
mind to significant material omissions and apparent contradictions of the
Respondent, but was able to resolve them as specified above.
VII.
Conclusion
[14]
Consequently, the application for judicial
review is dismissed.
Email this Content