BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
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.
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