Date: 19981027
Docket: T-137-98
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal
from the decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
WEN-LUNG CHEN (SPENCER)
Appellant
JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TEITELBAUM, J.
[1] On or about April 24, 1997, the Appellant filed an application for Canadian Citizenship. It appears from the said application that Mr. Chen first came to Canada on May 1, 1993 as a landed immigrant.
[2] He came to Canada with his wife and two children. On May 8, 1993, some seven days later, he, together with his children, left Canada to return to Taiwan from whence he first came, to accompany his children to "finish school and the second semester".
[3] The Appellant returned to Canada on August 30, 1993. On January 1, 1994 he again left Canada to return to Taiwan for the reason "consultant assignment and trade opportunity searching" and returned to Canada on April 8, 1994. From April 20, 1994 to April 22, 1997, the Appellant left Canada nine times for an absence of 989 days plus the 202 days absence from May 8, 1993 to April 8, 1994 for a total absence of 1191 days.
[4] Other than the absence from May 8, 1993 to August 30, 1993, all his absences were, he states, for "consultant assignment and trade opportunity searching" and always in Taiwan.
[5] At the hearing the Appellant informed me that he was never successful in finding any trade opportunities. Furthermore, he states, from November 12, 1997 to October 27, 1998, the Appellant spent 2 of 11 months in Canada returning to Taiwan for trading opportunities but never being successful.
[6] In any event, on January 15, 1998, the Citizenship Judge refused to approve the Appellant"s Citizenship application stating, and I say with reason, "I found that you met all of the requirements for citizenship set out in the Citizenship Act , except for the requirement of residence under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act, "an applicant is required to have accumulated at least three years residence in Canada within the four years immediately preceding his or her application".
[7] The evidence made before me, as this appeal is a Trial De Novo, is that the Appellant spent a total of 256 days in Canada when he filed his application for citizenship. Other than the fact that the Applicant"s wife and children were in Canada, the Appellant had no ties to Canada. In fact, when asked why he wanted to be a Canadian Citizen, he replied to be able to freely travel. I believe that is exactly what he has been doing.
[8] In a case very similar to the facts found in the case at bar, Re. John Tiny Min Hui (1994) 24 IMM. L.R. (2d) 8, it is stated in the held, "Canadianization" of permanent residents cannot be accomplished abroad". On page 14, Mr. Justice Muldoon goes on to say, as the purpose for the residency requirement, "it (the Citizenship Act ) intends to confer citizenship on applicants who have "Canadianized" themselves by residing among Canadians in Canada. This cannot be accomplished abroad. Nor can it be accomplished be depositing bank accounts, rental payment (or being the owner of a condo) furniture, clothing goods and more importantly, spouses and children - in a word, all except oneself - in Canada while remaining personally outside Canada".
[9] The same applies in the case at bar. The Appellant himself was only in Canada for a very limited time.
[10] The appeal is denied.
Max M. Teitelbaum
Judge
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
October 27, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-137-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
WEN-LUNG-CHEN (SPENCER)
Appellant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal (Quebec)
DATE OF HEARING: October 27, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF TEITELBAUM, J.
DATED: October 27, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mrs. Wen-Lung Chen (Spencer) Appellant on her own behalf
Mr. Jean Caumartin Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Jean Caumartin
Montreal (Quebec) Amicus Curiae
Email this Content