Date:
20130125
Docket:
T-1298-12
Citation:
2013 FC 75
Ottawa, Ontario, January 25, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.
Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
|
|
BIN ZHAO
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an appeal of a decision of a Citizenship Judge [Judge] denying citizenship
and concluding that there was neither sufficient hardship nor exceptional
services to make a recommendation to the Minister.
[2]
The
relevant period for determination of residency was March 30, 2006 to March 30,
2010. The Applicant claimed that he was present in Canada for 1,331 days of the
1,460 days in the relevant period.
[3]
The
Applicant was interviewed and subsequently it was requested that he submit
additional documents to support his claim. These documents included Notices of
Tax Assessments, payment summaries from BC and Ontario health authorities, bank
and credit card statements, lease or ownership documents and car insurance and
ownership documents.
The Applicant
submitted some but not all of the requested documents.
[4]
The
Judge commented on the deficiencies in the documents submitted including the
absence of key medical records, discrepancies regarding absences as between the
citizenship application and the residency question as well as the failure to
report a day trip to the United States.
The Judge’s
conclusion was that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that he met the
requirements of the Act.
[5]
The
issues in this appeal are (a) whether there was a breach of procedural
fairness, and (b) whether the decision was reasonable.
The standard of
review is well-established in decisions such as Navidi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 372, 2012 CarswellNat 1037 (procedural
fairness is a correctness standard) and Mizani v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 698, 2007 CarswellNat 1909 (residency
is reviewed on a reasonableness standard).
[6]
There
was no breach of procedural fairness as claimed. The Judge did not leave the
impression after the interview that the application had been granted. It is
difficult to see how anyone could have that impression when the Judge asked for
considerable documentation to be submitted after the hearing, all of which is
directed at proving the residency requirements.
[7]
The
Judge’s decision taken as a whole was reasonable. The documentation requested
was relevant to the issues before the Judge. The Applicant could hardly expect
a favourable decision in light of his failure to comply with the instruction to
file relevant documents.
[8]
It
would have been unreasonable, generally, to require specific and relevant
documents and, in the face of a failure to provide them, the Judge would nevertheless
issue a positive decision. In the present circumstances, it did not require an
extensive credibility analysis to conclude that in the absence of required
documents, the Applicant had not met the burden of proof.
[9]
This
appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the appeal is dismissed.
“Michael L. Phelan”
Email this Content