Date: 199809
Docket: T-1392-97
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Appellant,
- and -
CHENG-SIONG HUANG,
Respondent,
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J:
[1] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ("the Minister") appeals the decision of Citizenship Judge W.A. Borosa, dated April 28, 1997, wherein he approved the application of the respondent Cheng-Siong Huang for a grant of citizenship under subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act ("the Act").
[2] The grounds upon which the Citizenship Judge based his decision were that despite a residence shortage of 588 days, "the applicant fully meets the residence requirement of section 5(1)(c) of the Act, within the framework outlined by the Associate Chief Justice Thurlow (as he then was) in Re Papadogiorgakis, No. T-872-78".
1- Facts
[3] The respondent was born in Peikang, Taiwan, on August 6, 1942, and came to Canada in December 1991 at which time he completed his application for permanent residence. On August 1st, 1992, he, his wife and their youngest son officially landed and settled in Canada. His two older sons remained in Taiwan, as they could not leave the country because of the required army service. In a document filed with his application for citizenship on August 21, 1996, the respondent explained that he had "to take my son here in a rushing hurry even before being approved as qualified immigrant, because there in Taiwan a law prohibits any healthy male youth up to the age of 16 years old from going abroad until completion of a 2-year army service". The two older sons had to remain in Taiwan for that reason. His wife and his youngest son who accompanied him to Canada are now Canadian citizens.
[4] The respondent gave several reasons to explain his many and long absences. First, he wanted to be with his two older sons because "it is just too dangerous to leave them alone behind us". Second, "although I wanted to continue as a consultant without pay . . . it was to me a voluntary job to return and help the company, which might be good for myself in future". Third, he "could not and should not cut off my relationship as well as communication with my relatives and friends there in the country of my origin". Fourth, the respondent is "a dilettante of the Chinese classics, especially of poetry" and he wanted to pursue a career in that field.
[5] In his evidence before me the respondent could not provide credible explanations to the following queries: why, being unemployed, he would persist in working without pay in Taiwan; how he could retire off his investments when said investments were only $200,000 or $400,000 (he gave two different amounts); why he had to stay in Taiwan to look after his two sons if they were either in college, university or in the army; why he busied himself studying Chinese literature if he really was interested in finding a future in Canada. His answers to those questions were very evasive and not satisfactory.
[6] The Papadogiorgakis decision of Thurlow, A.C.J. (as he then was) dates back to 1978 and has been largely followed by this Court. It concerned a student who had established residence in Nova Scotia but was absent from this country to attend university in Massachusetts, U.S.A. There followed a number of cases where the appellant sold his home, business and other property in his country of origin, moved to Canada and established his residence here with his family, but had to leave often and for long periods in order to carry out his obligations as an international trader, doing business in several countries. In these successful appeals there was a transparent intention on the part of the appellant to leave his country of origin and to establish himself permanently in Canada.
[7] The factual situation is different in the instant case. The respondent keeps his former home in Taiwan. The purpose of his stay in Taiwan is not to earn income to support his family in Canada. On the contrary, he appears to be more interested in maintaining his roots in his country of origin.
[8] If the respondent is really serious about becoming a Canadian citizen, he will have to join his wife and son in Canada and show that he wants to be a part of the Canadian community.
[9] Consequently, the Minister's appeal is allowed.
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 25, 1998
Judge