Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Liao, docket T-716-98

Date: 19981006

Docket: T-716-98

     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

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION

     Appellant

     - and -

     PEI-CHEN DICK LIAO

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RICHARD A.C.J.:

[1]      This is an appeal by the Minister from a decision of the Citizenship Judge, dated March 16, 1998, wherein the Judge approved a grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act.

[2]      The Minister appeals on the following grounds:

[3]      The record before me shows that the respondent arrived in Canada in 1993, with his wife and two daughters, became a landed immigrant on February 20, 1994, and applied for Canadian citizenship on April 30, 1997. The respondent sold his home in Taiwan and purchased a home in North Vancouver.

[4]      Prior to 1994, the respondent owned and operated a wholesale business in sun glasses in Taiwan and was called upon to travel extensively in Asia, and to a lesser extent in Europe and the United States. He sold that business in December 1993.

[5]      Although he had sold his optical glass business prior to being landed in Canada, he continued, following his landing in Canada, to make business trips to various countries to maintain his knowledge of the industry and prepare him for employment in this field as a consultant. On January 16, 1995, he was employed by Suntech Optics in North Vancouver. It is one of Canada"s largest glass manufacturing businesses.

[6]      Prior to his employment with Suntech, the respondent absented himself from Canada for business purposes on six occasions for a total of 229 days. Following his employment with Sunteck, and excluding the period of time he received necessary medical treatment in Taiwan, he absented himself from Canada for business purposes on 11 occasions for a total of 467 days. Therefore he was absent from Canada on business trips for 696 days during the relevant period and for 176 days for health reasons, a grand total of 872 days.

[7]      The Minister claims that the respondent is short by 856 days and that he applied for Canadian citizenship prematurely, only a little more than three years after his landing in Canada. His first business trip took place within 3 weeks after landing and was followed by many others. Further, there is no evidence of any social ties with Canada such as membership in community groups.

[8]      While the figures concerning both the frequency, length and total of the respondent"s absences from Canada are significant, I reject the Minister"s appeal in the special circumstances of this case.

[9]      The respondent did establish a residence in Canada. He came to Canada prior to 1994, purchased a residence, sold his home and business in Taiwan and then entered Canada as a landed immigrant with his family after severing all his ties with Taiwan.

[10]      The specialized nature of the business he was skilled in and had operated for over 20 years required frequent business travel to the main manufacturing and fashion centres in Asia, the United States and Europe. He continued such travels to maintain and enhance his employment opportunities in Canada. He did obtain such employment as a consultant in Canada within one year of his landing in Canada, resided in Canada, but was required to travel as part of his normal work for a Canadian-based enterprise.

[11]      During any one business trip he usually visited many cities and has a brief stay in each. These cities were located in Asia, the United States and Europe, in that order.

[12]      After giving the matter careful consideration, the Citizenship Judge approved the respondent"s application. Based on the circumstances disclosed in the record before me and after hearing the testimony of the respondent, I am not prepared to disturb the decision of the Citizenship Judge and, accordingly, the appeal by the Minister is dismissed.

     ____________________________

     Associate Chief Justice

Ottawa, Ontario

October 6, 1998