Date: 20091105
Docket: T-448-08
Citation:
2009 FC 1137
Montréal,
Quebec, November 5, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
GEORGES
GUY MARIO DELIA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an appeal by Georges Guy Mario Delia (the applicant) under subsection 14(5)
of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, of a decision made by a
citizenship judge, dated December 5, 2007, denying the application for
citizenship filed by the applicant.
[2]
The
applicant arrived in Canada with his family and became a permanent
resident on August 13, 2000. On May 8, 2004, he submitted an application for
citizenship.
[3]
The
applicant was employed by Exxon Mobil in Africa. After
arriving in Canada, he asked his employer to be transferred to a position in Canada but the
employer never granted his request. He therefore continued to work in Africa during the
relevant period, from 2000 to 2004, as well as afterwards.
[4]
Consequently,
the applicant reported numerous and prolonged absences from Canada throughout
the relevant period. In fact, his absences during this period totalled 1,044
days; the days he was present in Canada, only 319.
[5]
The
citizenship judge applied the test from Koo (Re), [1993] 1 F.C. 286,
[1992] F.C.J. No. 1107 (QL). Regarding the first prong of the test, which
deals with the presence of an applicant in Canada before an absence occurring
during the relevant period, the citizenship judge noted that the applicant
‘‘created a pattern of absences from Canada at the start.’’ In
fact, the applicant returned to Cameroon twenty-four days after
arriving in Canada. The
applicant returned regularly to Canada, but these return visits were brief –
much briefer than his stays in Africa. The applicant maintained this mode of
living throughout the relevant period, as well as afterwards.
[6]
For
the second prong, he noted that the applicant’s immediate and extended family
is in Canada.
[7]
As
for the third prong, he determined that the applicant’s pattern of physical
presence in Canada was that of
a visitor, and not of a resident returning home. He noted that the applicant
could not [translation]
‘‘establish residence’’ in Canada in twenty-four days and concluded that the
applicant was simply visiting family when he returned here.
[8]
With
regard to the fourth prong, he noted the considerable number of days the
applicant lacked in order to meet the residency test established by the Citizenship
Act, namely, 776 days out of 1,095.
[9]
For
the fifth prong, he concluded that the applicant’s absences were not at all the
result of a temporary situation. His mode of living – short periods of presence
followed by long absences – had never changed.
[10]
Finally,
regarding the sixth prong, he found that, given the applicant’s long stays in
Cameroon and the brevity of his visits to Canada, his
strongest connection was to Cameroon.
[11]
The
citizenship judge indicated that the presence of the applicant’s family in Canada was given
significant weight in his decision, as was the length of the applicant’s
absences. However, what tipped the scales was the fact that the applicant’s
initial presence in Canada lasted only twenty-four days, and consequently, the
applicant never really established himself in Canada.
[12]
In
my view, the citizenship judge’s decision on the question of residency is
reasonable. The applicant, in reality, failed to submit any serious argument
that would show otherwise.
[13]
Given
that the applicant left Canada less than a month after his arrival, it
was reasonable for the citizenship judge to find that he never really
established himself here. The applicant’s absences having been systematic and
prolonged, he was entitled to conclude that the applicant had never centralized
his mode of living in Canada.
[14]
Consequently,
the appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS that the appeal be
dismissed.
‘‘Danièle
Tremblay-Lamer’’
Certified
true translation
Sebastian
Desbarats, Translator
Email this Content