Date: 19990216
Docket: T-782-98
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATER OF an appeal
from the decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
KAR SZETO
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DUBÉ J :
[1] The Minister appeals the decision of a Citizenship Judge who held that the respondent has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) (residency) of the Citizenship Act despite the fact that he has been absent from Canada 1,030 days during the four years preceding his application for citizenship.
[2] The respondent was born on November 7, 1975, in Hong Kong and became an English citizen when his family moved to London, England. He landed in Canada with his parents on February 20, 1993, and he remained only a week with them before returning to college in England. During that very short period, his parents had not yet purchased a house and the family was living in a room at a Holiday Inn.
[3] The well-known decision in Papadogiorgakis1 clearly established the principle that physical presence is not absolutely essential to maintain residency in Canada. However, the young student Papadogiorgakis entered Canada on a student visa in 1970 and attended Acadia University at Wolfville, Nova Scotia. It was held that he centralized his mode of living in Nova Scotia before leaving for an American university in 1976.
[4] In the case at bar, it surely cannot be said that the respondent centralized his mode of living in Canada in one week, living in a hotel room. This young man is still studying at Cambridge from which he will graduate in June 1999. I am sure that if, after graduation, he returns to Canada to stay he will have no problem (after the necessary period of residency) in becoming a Canadian citizen, and indeed a valuable one.
[5] Consequently, the appeal of the Minister is allowed.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 16 , 1999
Judge
__________________
1 [1978] 2 F.C. 208.
Email this Content