Date: 20070130
Docket: T-568-06
Citation: 2007 FC 76
BETWEEN:
RONG
DAI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT
Pinard
J.
[1]
This
is an appeal under subsection
14(5) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 (the Act) and
section 21 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 from the
decision of Citizenship Judge Vera N. Radyo, dated January 30, 2006, wherein
she denied the applicant’s application for citizenship under paragraph 5(1)(c)
of the Act.
[2]
Rong
Dai, the applicant, is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. She arrived
in Canada as a
permanent resident on August 27, 2000 and filed her application for citizenship
on March 27, 2004. The period of time that can be counted towards her days of
residence is from August 27, 2000 to March 27, 2004, a period of some 1307
days. The applicant claimed 1094 days in Canada and 213 days
absence. The Citizenship Judge did not agree that the applicant was present in Canada for 1094
days.
[3]
The
relevant provisions of the Act follow:
|
5. (1) The Minister shall
grant citizenship to any person who
…
(c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of
subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and
has, within the four years immediately preceding the date of his or her
application, accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada
calculated in the following manner:
(i) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada
before his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person
shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day of residence, and
(ii)
for every day during which the person was resident in Canada after his lawful
admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to
have accumulated one day of residence;
|
5. (1) Le ministre attribue la citoyenneté à toute personne qui, à
la fois :
…
c) est un résident permanent au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi
sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés et a, dans les quatre ans
qui ont précédé la date de sa demande, résidé au Canada pendant au moins
trois ans en tout, la durée de sa résidence étant calculée de la manière
suivante :
(i) un demi-jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada avant
son admission à titre de résident permanent,
(ii) un jour pour chaque jour de résidence au Canada après son
admission à titre de résident permanent;
|
[4]
The
Citizenship Judge found that she could not determine how many days the
applicant spend in Canada during the relevant period because of the
contradictory and incomplete information given by the applicant and because she
did not find that there was evidence to satisfy her that the applicant was
present in Canada throughout
the period from August 2000 to July 2002.
[5]
The
Citizenship Judge was satisfied that the evidence provided by the applicant
indicated that she was present in Canada during the period from August 2002 to March
2003; however, she found that the documentation for the period of August 2000
to July 2002 was lacking. Indeed, the applicant herself confirmed during
cross-examination that the information she provided was incomplete.
[6]
The
Citizenship Judge found that during the hearing the applicant was not able to
provide much information about her activities during this period. The applicant
had provided bank statements for the period of September 2000 to January 2005
which the Citizenship found indicated little monthly activity. The Citizenship
Judge also held that bank statements are passive documents which do not demonstrate
presence or social, economic or cultural activity.
[7]
The
Citizenship Judge also found other documents to be unsatisfactory as evidence
that the applicant was present. For example, she held that the letter from the
applicant’s friend stated that the applicant lived with her but it did not
indicate whether the applicant was in Canada throughout the period
they shared accommodation. The Citizenship Judge also drew a negative inference
from the applicant’s failure to declare two stamps in her passport.
[8]
In
such a matter, even though I might have considered the passport evidence
differently, it is not incumbent upon this Court to simply substitute its own
appreciation of the facts to that made by the Citizenship Judge, as I am not
satisfied that the latter based her decision on an erroneous finding of fact
that she made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the
material before her (paragraph 18.1(4)(c) of the Federal Courts Act).
[9]
As
I find that it was not patently unreasonable for the Citizenship Judge, based
on the evidence before her, to conclude that she was unable to accurately
determine the applicant’s presence in Canada during the relevant period of time
(Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235), the intervention of the
Court is not warranted and the applicant’s appeal is dismissed.
“Yvon
Pinard”
Ottawa, Ontario
January
30, 2007
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-568-06
STYLE OF
CAUSE: RONG
DAI v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF
HEARING: Vancouver,
British Columbia
DATE OF
HEARING: January
18, 2007
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT: Pinard
J.
DATED: January 30, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Rong Dai THE
APPLICANT ON HER OWN BEHALF
Mr. Peter Bell FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
Ms. Rong Dai THE
APPLICANT ON HER OWN BEHALF
Surrey, British Columbia
John H. Sims,
Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada
Email this Content