Date: 20001026
Docket: T-1393-99
BETWEEN:
CHUNG YAN WONG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAWSON J.
[1] Despite the very able submission of his counsel, the applicant Mr. Wong has failed to establish that the citizenship judge erred in refusing Mr. Wong's application for citizenship on the ground that the judge was not satisfied that Mr. Wong had met the residence requirement contained in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, as amended ("Act").
[2] The citizenship judge concluded that Mr. Wong had not centralized his mode of living in Canada. The judge was entitled to adopt this view of the residence requirement articulated by this Court in Re Koo, [1993] 1 F.C. 286 (F.C.T.D.), cited by the citizenship judge. Further, there was, as discussed below, evidence to support the citizenship judge's conclusion that Mr. Wong had failed to centralize his mode of living in Canada.
[3] Mr. Wong failed to convince me that the citizenship judge ignored the evidence before him. The citizenship judge did reference the fact that Mr. Wong was issued a returning resident permit. The failure to reference employment with the Federal Government which commenced after the applicant's filing of his application for citizenship is not an error. Nor is it an error to fail to specifically reference that Mr. Wong sponsored his wife. It is settled law that a citizenship judge is not required in his reasons to specifically reference every item of evidence before him. The fact that evidence is not mentioned does not mean that it was ignored.
[4] I find that the citizenship judge did not misapprehend that Mr. Wong was married in 1994 as submitted by Mr. Wong. Rather, the judge stated that "[w]hile in Hong Kong, you got married to a Hong Kong citizen". This was a correct statement.
[5] Similarly, Mr. Wong has not established that the citizenship judge's decision was unreasonable on the evidence.
[6] The standard of review applicable to appeals under subsection 14(5) of the Act was stated as follows by Lutfy, J., as he then was, in Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 164 F.T.R. 177 (F.C.T.D.):
| The appropriate standard, in these circumstances, is one close to the correctness end of the spectrum. However, where citizenship judges, in clear reasons which demonstrate an understanding of the case law, properly decide that the facts satisfy their view of the statutory test in paragraph 5(1)(c), the reviewing judges ought not to substitute arbitrarily their different opinion of the residency requirement. |
[7] Here the citizenship judge demonstrated an understanding of the case law and its application to the facts of this case. The judge noted that:
| · Mr. Wong was short of the required 1,095 days by 835 days. |
| · After initially landing on February 28 (not February 2 as noted by the judge), 1993, Mr. Wong was issued a returning resident permit on March 17, 1993 to return to Hong Kong to complete his studies and he did so return. |
| · Mr. Wong came back to Canada to attend his mother's funeral and to settle her estate on November 25, 1993. He then returned to Hong Kong. |
| · Mr. Wong was awarded a Master of Science Degree by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University on November 19, 1996. |
| · Mr. Wong returned once more to Canada to visit his father from December 14, 1996 to January 13, 1997. |
| · Mr. Wong returned to Hong Kong in January of 1997 for a period of 170 days to finish his thesis. |
| · Mr. Wong then returned to Canada in July of 1997. |
[8] On those facts, it was reasonably open to the judge to conclude that Mr. Wong had not centralized his mode of living in Canada and that his application for citizenship was simply premature.
[9] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
October 26, 2000