Date: 20121024
Docket: T-74-12
Citation: 2012 FC 1241
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED
TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, October 24, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam
Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
|
|
VICTORIA NASR
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an appeal by Victoria Nasr [the applicant] under subsection 14(5) of
the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 [the Act], from a decision of a
citizenship officer issued November 9, 2001, rejecting the request to reopen
the applicant’s file.
[2]
The
applicant, a citizen of Jordan, submitted her application for Canadian
citizenship on July 7, 2008. On February 11, 2009, Citizenship and
Immigration Canada [CIC] sent acknowledgment of receipt of the application to
her home address.
[3]
On
March 9, 2009, the applicant submitted to CIC form No. IMM-5476 entitled Use
of a Representative, in which she appointed Sleiman Bou Shakra to act on
her behalf in the context of her citizenship application.
[4]
Mr. Bou
Shakra’s office address changed on June 30, 2010.
[5]
On September 21,
2010, CIC sent a notice to appear for an interview with a citizenship judge to the
address of Mr. Bou Shakra provided on form IMM-5476. Counsel submits that
he did not receive the notice, which was sent to his former address. The
applicant did not appear for her interview on October 4, 2010.
[6]
On
January 5, 2011, CIC sent a final notice to appear for an interview with a
citizenship judge, again to the former address. The applicant did not appear
for this interview, scheduled for January 25, 2011.
[7]
On
February 5, 2011, that is, 30 days after the second notice to appear, CIC
considered the applicant’s file as having been abandoned, and the file was tagged
for archiving.
[8]
In
his affidavit, Mr. Bou Shakra, submits that it was not until April 10,
2011, when he checked the status of the file on the Internet, that he learnt
that CIC had sent two notices to appear to his former address. On the very same
day, he informed the respondent of his change of address by facsimile.
[9]
The
applicant’s file was archived on May 3, 2011.
[10]
On
May 25, 2011, Mr. Bou Shakra submitted a request to have the
applicant’s file reopened. This request was refused on November 9, 2011. On
January 10, 2012, Alain Vallières, the applicant’s new counsel, filed the
present application.
[11]
In
her decision, the officer noted that section 6.7 of the CP 13:
Administration manual [the CP 13 Manual], a policy manual published by CIC,
indicates that a citizenship application is deemed abandoned when, 30 days
after the second notice, the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation
for his or her absence on the second scheduled interview date, as was the case
here. She therefore refused to reopen the file.
[12]
Did the
officer err in refusing the request to reopen the file?
[13]
The
applicant submits that, under subsection 11(9) of the Citizenship Regulations,
SOR/93-246 [the Regulations], it was still possible for the Minister to
continue processing her application after her lawyer provided his new address
on April 10, 2011, and before CIC declared that her application was
considered to have been abandoned on May 3, 2011.
[14]
The
applicant submits that, in the present case, the citizenship officer did not
analyze the applicant’s reasons for her absence from the interviews and did not
take into consideration that the circumstances that led to the notices not
being received were beyond her control. I disagree.
[15]
It
is clear from reading the affidavit of Mr. Bou Shakra that there is no
mention of his informing CIC of his change of address or taking any measures to
make sure that he would receive the communications that were relevant to the
applicant’s file. Furthermore, the applicant cannot claim to have been diligent
since she did nothing, and neither she nor her representative verified the
status of her file electronically or otherwise over a period of two whole
years.
[16]
The
officer therefore did not err in refusing to reopen the applicant’s
application. Subsection 11(9) of the Regulations did not oblige her to do
so. She considered the explanation that the lawyer moved on June 30, 2010,
and that it was not until April 10, 2011, that he became aware of the
notices when checking his client’s file online. The officer noted that CIC Web
site clearly informs applicants that they must notify CIC if the contact
information of their representatives changes, which both the applicant and her
representative failed to do in a timely manner.
[17]
I
have found no basis for concluding that the decision was unreasonable, particularly
when I consider the absence of an explanation by the applicant to the officer
justifying why neither the applicant nor her lawyer informed CIC of the new
address of the lawyer in question before April 10, 2011, that is, nine
months after the address change.
[18]
For
these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that the appeal be dismissed.
“Danièle Tremblay-Lamer”
Certified true translation
Johanna Kratz, Translator
Email this Content