Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030612

Docket: T-1819-01

Citation: 2003 FCT 738

CALGARY, Alberta, Thursday, the 12th day of June, 2003.

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN                                

BETWEEN:

                                  MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                                                                    KA YEE CHONG

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

KELEN J.:

[1]                 This is an appeal of the decision of a citizenship judge dated August 28, 2001, granting the respondent Canadian citizenship. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the respondent satisfies the residency requirements of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29.


[2]                 The respondent was born in Hong Kong in 1975 and is a citizen of Portugal. She arrived in Canada with her parents and two sisters on August 22, 1996 and was admitted as a permanent resident. She left Canada on September 2, 1996 to continue her studies in Spain at the University of Granada, where she had completed her first year in Business Administration during the previous academic term. The applicant returned to Canada on May 18, 2000 after completing her studies in Spain. During the time she spent in Spain, she made several trips to Canada where her parents and siblings continued to reside. She made an application for citizenship on April 27, 2001. As of the date of application, she had been present in Canada for 437 days and absent for 1023 days in the preceding four years. She had a shortfall of 658 days of the required 1095 days of residence prescribed by paragraph 5(1)(c).

[3]                 In Re Papadogiorgakis, [1978] 2 F.C. 208 (F.C.T.D.) Thurlow J. (as he was then) held that citizenship could be granted to a student who had almost no physical presence in Canada during the assessment period. The student in question had resided in Canada for four years prior to the assessment period and had established a centralized mode of living prior to departing for study abroad. During his absence he also maintained a Canadian residence and returned regularly to Canada.


[4]                 However, I am satisfied that Re Papadogiorgakis is not applicable to the case at bar. As Simpson J. stated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Rahman, [1999] F.C.J. No. 655 (T.D.) (QL), Re Papadogiorgakis is not authority for the proposition that a student can come to Canada for a short time, not establish residence, spend long periods of study abroad and expect to meet the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship. That is precisely the case here. The respondent was in Canada for less than a month before she left to resume her studies in Spain. It cannot be said that she centralized her mode of living in Canada prior to departing for study abroad. As the citizenship judge erred by determining that the respondent met the residency requirement in paragraph 5(1)(c), the decision must be set aside.

[5]                 In closing I wish to point out that this decision is merely a temporary bar to obtaining citizenship. If the respondent has centralized her mode of living since returning to Canada in 2000, she will be eligible for citizenship three years after centralizing her existence in Canada..

                                                                            ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that this appeal be allowed.

                                                                                                                                       "Michael A. Kelen"

                                                                                                                                                       J. F. C. C.      


                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             T-1819-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION v.

KA YEE CHONG        

                                                                                   

PLACE OF HEARING:                     CALGARY, Alberta

DATE OF HEARING:                       June 12, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER : Kelen, J.

DATED:                                                June 12, 2003


APPEARANCES:

Mr. Rick Garvin                                                                             FOR APPLICANT

Ms. Ka Yee Chong                                                                        FOR RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Morris A. Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General

of Canada                                                                                      FOR APPLICANT

Ms. Ka Yee Chong

Calgary, Alberta                                                                             FOR RESPONDENT


                                                  

                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                  TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20030612

Docket: T-1819-01

BETWEEN:

                  MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

                                  IMMIGRATION

                                                                                        Applicant

                                                and


                                   KA YEE CHONG

                                                                                    Respondent

                                                                                                                              

                          REASONS FOR ORDER

                                      AND ORDER

                                                                                                                              

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.