Date: 20140606
Docket: T-1690-13
Citation:
2014 FC 528
Ottawa, Ontario, June 6, 2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice St-Louis
|
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SULEEQO SHEIKH ABUKAR
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is an appeal of the August 16, 2013
decision (the Decision) of Citizenship Judge Harjit S. Dhaliwal (the Judge)
refusing the applicant’s application for Canadian citizenship. The appeal is
made pursuant to section 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29
(the Act).
I.
BACKGROUND
[2]
The applicant is Suleeqo Skeikh Abukar, a
Canadian permanent resident.
[3]
On August 14, 2013, she attended an interview
before the Judge who found that she failed the language requirement under section
5(1)(d) of the Act and the knowledge of Canada requirement under section 5(1)(e)
of the Act and consequently refused her citizenship application.
II.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
[4]
The following provisions of the Act are relevant
to the present case:
|
Grant of citizenship
5. (1) The Minister
shall grant citizenship to any person who
|
Attribution
de la citoyenneté
5. (1) Le ministre attribue la citoyenneté
à toute personne qui, à la fois :
|
|
(a) makes application for citizenship;
|
a) en fait la demande;
|
|
(b) is eighteen years of age or over;
|
b) est âgée d’au moins dix-huit ans;
|
|
(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:
|
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) 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
|
(i) un demi-jour pour chaque jour de
résidence au Canada avant son admission à titre de résident permanent,
|
|
(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;
|
(ii) un jour pour chaque jour de résidence
au Canada après son admission à titre de résident permanent;
|
|
(d) has an adequate knowledge of one of
the official languages of Canada;
|
d) a une connaissance suffisante de
l’une des langues officielles du Canada;
|
|
(e) has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; and
|
e) a une connaissance suffisante du
Canada et des responsabilités et avantages conférés par la citoyenneté;
|
|
(f) is not under a removal order and is
not the subject of a declaration by the Governor in Council made pursuant to
section 20.
|
f) n’est pas sous le coup d’une mesure de
renvoi et n’est pas visée par une déclaration du gouverneur en conseil faite
en application de l’article 20.
|
|
[…]
|
[…]
|
|
Waiver by Minister on compassionate
grounds
(3) The Minister may, in his discretion,
waive on compassionate grounds,
|
Dispenses
(3) Pour des raisons d’ordre humanitaire,
le ministre a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d’exempter :
|
|
(a) in the case of any person, the
requirements of paragraph (1)(d) or (e);
|
a) dans tous les cas, des conditions
prévues aux alinéas (1)d) ou e);
|
|
(b) in the case of a minor, the
requirement respecting age set out in paragraph (1)(b), the requirement
respecting length of residence in Canada set out in paragraph (1)(c) or the
requirement to take the oath of citizenship; and
|
b) dans le cas d’un mineur, des conditions
relatives soit à l’âge ou à la durée de résidence au Canada respectivement
énoncées aux alinéas (1)b) et c), soit à la prestation du serment de
citoyenneté;
|
|
(c) in the case of any person who is
prevented from understanding the significance of taking the oath of
citizenship by reason of a mental disability, the requirement to take the
oath.
|
c) dans le cas d’une personne incapable de
saisir la portée du serment de citoyenneté en raison d’une déficience
mentale, de l’exigence de prêter ce serment.
|
|
Special
cases
(4) In order to alleviate cases of special
and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada,
and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Governor in Council
may, in his discretion, direct the Minister to grant citizenship to any
person and, where such a direction is made, the Minister shall forthwith
grant citizenship to the person named in the direction
|
Cas
particuliers
(4) Afin de remédier à une situation
particulière et inhabituelle de détresse ou de récompenser des services
exceptionnels rendus au Canada, le gouverneur en conseil a le pouvoir
discrétionnaire, malgré les autres dispositions de la présente loi,
d’ordonner au ministre d’attribuer la citoyenneté à toute personne qu’il
désigne; le ministre procède alors sans délai à l’attribution.
|
|
[Emphasis added]
|
[Je souligne]
|
In addition, the following provisions
of the Citizenship Regulations, SOR/93-246 [Regulations] are relevant:
|
OFFICIAL
LANGUAGES CRITERIA
14. A person
is considered to have an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages
of Canada if they demonstrate that they have competence in basic
communication in that language such that they are able to
|
CONNAISSANCE
DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES
14. Une
personne possède une connaissance suffisante de l’une des langues officielles
du Canada si elle démontre une capacité élémentaire à communiquer dans cette
langue, de manière à pouvoir :
|
|
(a) take
part in short, routine conversations about everyday topics;
|
a) prendre
part à de brèves conversations sur des sujets de la vie courante;
|
|
(b)
understand simple instructions and directions;
|
b)
comprendre des instructions et des directives simples;
|
|
(c) use
basic grammar, including simple structures and tenses, in oral communication;
and
|
c) utiliser,
dans la communication orale, les règles de base de la grammaire, notamment
pour ce qui est de la syntaxe et de la conjugaison;
|
|
(d) use
vocabulary that is adequate for routine oral communication
|
d) utiliser
un vocabulaire adéquat pour communiquer oralement au quotidien.
|
|
KNOWLEDGE OF
CANADA AND CITIZENSHIP CRITERIA
15. (1) A
person is considered to have an adequate knowledge of Canada if they
demonstrate, based on their responses to questions prepared by the Minister,
that they know the national symbols of Canada and have a general
understanding of the following subjects
|
CONNAISSANCES
DU CANADA ET DE LA CITOYENNETÉ
15. (1) Une
personne possède une connaissance suffisante du Canada si les réponses
qu’elle donne aux questions rédigées par le ministre montrent qu’elle connaît
les symboles nationaux du Canada et comprend d’une manière générale les
sujets suivants :
|
|
(a) the
chief characteristics of Canadian political and military history;
|
a) les
principales caractéristiques de l’histoire politique et militaire du Canada;
|
|
(b) the
chief characteristics of Canadian social and cultural history;
|
b) les
principales caractéristiques de l’histoire sociale et culturelle du Canada;
|
|
(c) the
chief characteristics of Canadian physical and political geography;
|
c) les
principales caractéristiques de la géographie physique et politique du
Canada;
|
|
(d) the
chief characteristics of the Canadian system of government as a
constitutional monarchy; and
|
d) les
principales caractéristiques du système politique canadien en tant que
monarchie constitutionnelle;
|
|
(e)
characteristics of Canada other than those referred to in paragraphs (a) to
(d).
|
e) toutes
autres caractéristiques du Canada.
|
|
(2) A person
is considered to have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and
privileges of citizenship if they demonstrate, based on their responses to
questions prepared by the Minister, that they have a general understanding of
the following subjects:
|
(2) Une
personne possède une connaissance suffisante des responsabilités et
privilèges attachés à la citoyenneté si les réponses qu’elle donne aux
questions rédigées par le ministre montrent qu’elle comprend d’une manière
générale les sujets suivants :
|
|
(a)
participation in the Canadian democratic process;
|
a) la
participation au processus démocratique canadien;
|
|
(b)
participation in Canadian society, including volunteerism, respect for the
environment and the protection of Canada’s natural, cultural and
architectural heritage;
|
b) la
participation à la société canadienne, notamment, l’entraide sociale, le respect
de l’environnement et la protection du patrimoine naturel, culturel et
architectural du Canada;
|
|
(c) respect
for the rights, freedoms and obligations set out in the laws of Canada; and
|
c) le
respect des droits, des libertés et des obligations énoncés dans les lois du
Canada;
|
|
(d) the
responsibilities and privileges of citizenship other than those referred to
in paragraphs (a) to (c).
|
d) tous
autres responsabilités et privilèges attachés à la citoyenneté.
|
III.
THE IMPUGNED DECISION
[5]
By way of his decision dated August 16, 2013,
the Judge found that the applicant did not meet the requirements set forth in sections
5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e) of the Act as she did not have an adequate knowledge of one
of the official languages of Canada nor an adequate knowledge of Canada and of
the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
[6]
The Judge found she did not have an adequate
knowledge of Canada’s language requirement because she was unable to:
•
answer simple questions on familiar topics using
a variety of short sentences with connecting words;
•
speak about something she did in the past using
proper verb tenses;
•
give simple everyday instructions and
directions;
•
demonstrate an adequate vocabulary for basic
everyday communication; and
•
tell a simple story about everyday activities.
[7]
He further found that the applicant did not meet
the knowledge of Canada requirement because she obtained a score of 9 out of 20
on the test, while the pass mark is set at 15 out of 20.
[8]
Finally, the Judge decided not to recommend
waiver under section 5(3) of the Act or grant citizenship on a discretionary
basis under section 5(4) of the Act, as the applicant did not demonstrate
special circumstances in her situation.
IV.
ISSUES
[9]
The issues in this judicial review are:
1. Did the Judge err in finding that the applicant did not meet the
language and knowledge requirements?
2. Did the Judge err in finding that there were no special
circumstances to justify a recommendation of waiver or discretionary grant of
citizenship?
V.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[10]
While a citizenship appeal under the Act is not
a judicial review under s 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c
F-7 [Federal Courts Act], it proceeds by way of application pursuant to
Rule 300(c) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. As such,
citizenship appeals are no longer trials de novo, but must be determined
on the record before the citizenship judge, and no new evidence may be
submitted (Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v Hung
(1998), 47 Imm LR (2d) 182 at para 8; Korolove v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2013 FC 370 at paras 50-51).
[11]
This Court has consistently held that it should
not overturn a citizenship judge’s findings on questions of mixed fact and law
unless they are unreasonable (see e.g. Lam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
& Immigration) (1999), 164 FTR 177 at paras 9-10; Akan v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (1999), 170 FTR 158 at para 7; Canada
(Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v Fu, 2004 FC 60 at para 7; Khan
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2012 FC 593 at para 6
[Khan]).
[12]
Further, the Court should not overturn findings
of pure fact unless it was an erroneous finding made in a perverse or
capricious manner or without regard to the evidence (Federal Courts Act,
section 18.1(4)(d); Khan at para 7).
VI.
SUBMISSIONS AND ANALYSIS
Preliminary
Issue
[13]
The respondent notes that the correct respondent
in this case should be the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, not the
Attorney General of Canada. It asks that the Court allow the style of cause to
be amended to reflect the correct respondent. The Court will grant the
requested amendment.
Issue 1: Did
the Judge err in finding that the applicant did not meet the language and
knowledge requirements?
a. Applicant’s
submissions
[14]
The applicant does not contest the tests
results. She argues that the Judge did not clarify the distinction between the
Act and the Regulations. She also submits that the Judge misapplied the law by
not reading sections 5(1)(a) to (e) of the Act together in a liberal way “to achieve
the remedial purpose of granting Canadian citizenship to the applicant”. She
also bemoans the Act’s alleged lack of plain language, which she says the Judge
should have clarified, and attacked the decision on the basis that the Judge
did not cite any case law.
b. Respondent’s
submissions
[15]
The respondent submits that the Judge’s findings
that the applicant failed the language and knowledge requirements were findings
of facts, and thus warrant great deference. The applicant’s scores on the tests
simply did not meet the statutory requirements of the Act. Therefore, the
Judge’s findings were reasonable.
c. Analysis
[16]
I agree with the respondent. The Judge’s
findings are clearly reasonable.
Issue 2: Did
the Judge err in finding that there were no special circumstances to justify a
recommendation of waiver or discretionary grant of citizenship?
a. Applicant’s
submissions
[17]
The applicant submits that the Judge did not
take into account her personal circumstances, such as the fact that she is from
Somalia, that English is her second language, that she has resided in Canada for five years, and that she has no criminal record.
b. Respondent’s
submissions
[18]
The respondent notes that the Applicant did not
produce any evidence to support a waiver of use of discretion as set forth in sections
5(3) or 5(4). The Judge expressly stated that he found no evidence of special
circumstances that would justify a recommendation to waive or discretionary
grant of citizenship.
c. Analysis
[19]
I agree with the respondent. The Judge indeed
indicates that he carefully considered all the material before him and found no
evidence of special circumstances. Based on the evidence, that conclusion is
reasonable.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The style of case is amended to name the Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration as the respondent;
2.
The appeal is dismissed and there shall be no
order as to costs.
"Martine St-Louis"
Email this Content