Date:
20130225
Docket:
T-1899-11
Citation:
2013 FC 191
Ottawa, Ontario,
February 25, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Manson
BETWEEN:
|
|
KIM PHUNG TRAN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This
is a citizenship appeal pursuant to section 21 of the Federal Courts Act,
RSC, 1985, c F-7 and subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985,
c C-29 [the Act].
[2]
Kim
Phung Tran [the applicant] is appealing a decision by the Citizenship Judge
issued on October 31, 2011, in which the applicant’s citizenship application
was rejected on the ground that she did not demonstrate adequate knowledge of
either official language of Canada, pursuant to subsection 5(1)(d) of the Act.
I. Background
[3]
The
applicant is a citizen of Vietnam. On December 27, 2006, the applicant became a
permanent resident of Canada. On July 7, 2010, the Applicant applied for
Canadian citizenship.
[4]
On
October 25, 2011, the applicant attended a hearing before the Citizenship Judge
and on October 31, 2011, the Citizenship Judge issued his decision in which he
did not approve the applicant’s citizenship application on the basis that the applicant
did not meet the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act in
not having an adequate knowledge of English or French.
[5]
The
decision notes that the Citizenship Judge asked the applicant questions to
determine if she met the necessary criteria under paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Act,
and decided that she was unable to convey orally basic information or provide simple
answers to questions.
[6]
The
Citizenship Judge also declined to recommend a favourable exercise of
discretion on the basis of compassionate grounds under subsection 5(3) of the
Act or as a case of special or unusual hardship or to reward services of
exceptional value to Canada pursuant to subsection 5(4) of the Act. He noted
that the applicant “did not present sufficient evidence to me of special
circumstances that would justify me in making such a recommendation.”
II. Issues
[7]
The
issue raised in the present application are as follows:
A. Did
the Citizenship Judge err in finding the applicant did not meet the language
requirement under subsection 5(1)(d) of the Act?
III. Standard of review
[8]
The
applicable standard of review for a decision of a Citizenship Judge, including
discretionary determinations, is reasonableness (Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 874 at paras 10-11 [Chen]; Amoah
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 775 at para 14).
[9]
Citizenship
appeals are not trials de novo and proceed based solely on the record before the
Citizenship Judge (Lama v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2005 FC 461 at para 21; Hassan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2002 FCT 755 at para 10).
[10]
Therefore,
the Court will only intervene where there is a lack of justification,
transparency and intelligibility or an unacceptable outcome in light of the
facts and law (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47 [Dunsmuir]).
IV. Analysis
[11]
The
statutory framework for assessing citizenship application sin terms of language
requirements is clear, in that the applicant must demonstrate adequate
knowledge of either official language by (a) comprehending basic spoken
statements and questions, and (b) conveying orally or in writing basic
information or answers to questions (section 14 of the Regulations). The
applicant failed to demonstrate the required level of language proficiency.
[12]
While
the applicant may disagree with the Citizenship Judge’s findings, the Court is
not to reweigh the evidence, but rather to assess if there was a material error
in the decision. I find no reviewable error in the Citizenship Judge’s
decision, given the decision is sufficiently justified, transparent and
intelligible.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that the applicant’s appeal is dismissed.
"Michael D.
Manson"
Email this Content