T-13-96
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
Cheung
Ming (Michael) Leung
Appellant
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered
orally on the Bench
at Vancouver, B.C. on
April 29, 1997, as edited)
McKEOWN J.
The
appellant appeals the decision of the Citizenship Judge dated November 10,
1995, refusing his application for citizenship on the basis that he did not
meet the requirements of residence for a Canadian citizen under paragraph
5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act (the Act). The issue is whether or not
the appellant satisfied the residence requirements enunciated in paragraph
5(1)(c) of the Act.
The
appellant landed in Canada on August 20, 1990. He had sold all his assets,
except his house, which he was attempting to sell in Hong Kong. He moved his
personal and financial assets to Canada, and his wife and he had a room at his
sister's for two years until he bought a house in Richmond in March of 1992.
The two children moved from the sister's house and the appellant and his wife
came back from Hong Kong in September 1992 and lived there, basically, full
time since that time.
The
appellant had sought a job with a Canadian company after selling his company in
Hong Kong. He was hired by a Canadian company, Book Art Ltd., which promised
to move him back to Toronto but the company wanted him to supervise their
overseas printing operations located in Hong Kong. It became apparent to the
appellant in 1991 that the Canadian company was not going to move him back and
he arranged to leave the company in August 1992.
In
1993, with some partners, he founded a book shop in the Vancouver area
specializing in Chinese newspapers and publications and in 1994 he founded a
second company, with other partners, to establish another shop in MetroTown in
the Vancouver area. In 1995 he established a trading business.
Although,
as stated by the Citizenship Judge, he was short 585 days to the required 1,095
days, it is clear that he has established residence in Canada. In 1992 he had
the full intention of establishing his life here from 1990. This intention has
been amply confirmed by the fact that since 1993 he has spent the majority of
his time here in Canada. In 1993 he was absent 30 days; in 1994, 24 days; in
1995, 40 days; and 70 days in 1996. He has no connection with any other
country. It is clear that his most substantial connection was to Canada even
in the period 1990 to 1992.
His
wife and children are Canadian citizens. I am satisfied that the appellant has
met the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act and has established
residence in Canada, as required thereunder. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
William
P. McKeown
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 16, 1997