Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971124

Docket: T-711-97

     IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,

     R.S. 1985, c. C-29

     AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the

     decision of a Citizenship Judge

     AND IN THE MATTER OF

     Abdulhakim A. Salman,

                                             Appellant.

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GIBSON J.

[1]      This appeal was heard before me at Toronto, Ontario on the 5th of November, 1997. The appellant appeals a decision of a Citizenship Court Judge, dated the 26th of February, 1997, refusing his application for citizenship on the basis that he did not meet the residency requirement for Canadian citizenship under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act.

[2]      According to the evidence that was before the Learned Citizenship Court Judge and before me, the appellant arrived in Canada with his parents and siblings on the 27th of August, 1988. All were landed on that day. Since that time, his parents and siblings have all become Canadian citizens.

[3]      The appellant was originally from Ethiopia but, prior to coming to Canada, he had not been in Ethiopia for some twenty years. Immediately before his arrival here , he had been studying in Bucharest, Romania where he had completed one year of pre-medical studies and his first year in medical school.

[4]      On arrival in Canada, the appellant attempted to enroll in Canadian medical schools but determined that he would have to do some four years of pre-medical studies in Canada before qualifying. He remained in Canada until September of 1989. During the year following his landing, he aggressively worked to integrate himself into Canadian society. He found himself employment as a shoe salesman. He regularly attended at mosque and involved himself, to the extent that time permitted, in social activities at the mosque. He engaged in community athletic endeavours, including participation in organized soccer in his community and worked-out regularly at a local gymnasium. He arranged for a student loan from the Government of Canada that would enable him to return to Bucharest to resume his medical studies.

[5]      In September of 1989 he returned to Bucharest to continue his studies, which he successfully completed in November of 1996. While continuing his studies, he returned each summer to Canada to resume his work as a salesman. During each of the summers, he again worked aggressively to integrate himself in his community in Canada.

[6]      Since his return to Canada following his studies, the appellant has been preparing to write "transfer exams" that would qualify him to practice medecine in Ontario. He has once again found employment as a salesman. He has again resumed his community involvement. He has commenced to repay his student loan.

[7]      In reasons for judgment on the citizenship appeals of Chi Tai Wong and Chi Yuen Wong,¹ I adopted the following passage from Re Lee²:

I have no doubt that the appellant would make an excellent citizen of Canada. She has been studying in England since she was sixteen and is presently completing medical studies at the University of Cambridge. She came to Canada on May 24, 1991, along with her parents and siblings. The whole family became landed immigrants on that date. The appellant left two days later to return to the United Kingdom, to continue her studies there.

She applied for citizenship on July 4, 1994. Within the preceding four year period she had resided in Canada for one hundred and sixty-five days. She was short 930 of 1,095 days of residence required by the Citizenship Act . By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that she has satisfied the residency requirements of the Act.

It is argued that her centralized mode of existence is in Canada because her family is here and because the quality of her residence in the United Kingdom has been as a student. I cannot so conclude. She is not a minor. Her chosen profession is one with respect to which it is well-known there are substantial barriers to entry in Canada for persons not trained in Canada. She has been a student in the United Kingdom, now for many years. Perhaps one day she will come to Canada and fulfil the residency requirements. In that case she will be entitled to citizenship. I sincerely hope she does so because, as I have indicated, I am of the view that she would be an excellent addition to our citizenry.

[8]      Certainly much of the foregoing applies with respect to the circumstances of this appellant, as it did with respect with Chi Tai Wong and Chi Yuen Wong. However, I find that there are here distinguishing factors that lead me to a different result. This appellant was in Canada for a full year before returning to Bucharest to continue his education. As indicated earlier in these reasons, he made use of that year to aggressively integrate himself into his Canadian community. I am satisfied that, in that year, he effectively established his residence here in Canada. Further, throughout the years following his return to Bucharest, he returned each summer to Canada and not merely maintained but enhanced his attachment to Canada. Since his return to Canada following completion of his studies, he has continued to enhance his attachment.

[9]      On the facts of this matter, I am satisfied that this appellant meets the residency requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act against the principles enunciated in Re: Papadogiorgakis3 and Re: Koo4.

[10]      For the foregoing reasons, by judgment dated the 5th of November, 1997, I allowed this appeal and recommended that Canadian citizenship be granted to the appellant.

_______________________________                               Judge

__________________

     ¹      [1997] F.C.J. No. 1266 (QL)

     ²      [1996] F.C.J. No. 33 (QL)

     ³      [1978] 2 F.C. 208 (T.D.)

     ⁴      [1993] 1 F.C. 286 (T.D.)