Date: 19981105
Docket: T-1372-97
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
- and -
HSING-YUNG CHUNG
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JOYAL J.
[1] At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal in Toronto on October 6, 1998, I signed an Order allowing the Minister"s appeal. It appeared to be fairly clear to me that the Citizenship Judge was in error in finding that the respondent met the residency requirements pursuant to para. 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act . The respondent has in fact experienced a residency shortage of some 936 days over the three years which had elapsed between the date of his admission to Canada and the date of his citizenship application.
[2] This case involves a citizen of Hong Kong who was landed in Canada with his family under the entrepreneurial class. He is an engineer by profession and incorporated an Ontario consulting firm for that purpose. It appears, however, that largely because of language problems in Canada, he has had to seek his business outside of Canada, particularly Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea and other Asian countries. As a result, his absences from Canada have been much longer than his periods of residence in this country.
[3] The Court notes that in the meantime, his wife and family have become well-integrated in Canada. They own their own home in the Toronto area and the children are doing very well in school. They have all become Canadian citizens. With respect to the respondent himself, however, the evidence indicates very limited involvement in any social group or professional institution in Canada.
[4] Nevertheless, certain aspects in the respondent"s situation were raised which might warrant some consideration on humanitarian or compassionate grounds, i.e. the fact that at 50 years of age, the respondent would find it difficult to practice his profession in Canada to ensure some level of economic security for his family, and the fact that his immediate family resides in Canada. Pursuant to s. 5(4) of the Act, some discretion is provided to the Minister to deal with such considerations. Under the circumstances, however, and in reviewing the very considered memorandum submitted by counsel for the Minister on October 15, 1998, I should find that no specific recommendation by this Court would be warranted at this stage of the story. It was stated in Re. Koo [1993], 1 F.C. 286 at 302:
| ... [recognizing] the difficult position in which the appellant [citizenship applicant finds himself, this is not appreciably different from that in which many individuals are placed. The law establishes criteria to be met by all regardless of the personal considerations of each. Some individuals necessarily fall on one side of the line drawn by the law. Others fall on the other side. This is the price we pay for having a system which tries to treat people equally. |
[5] Such is the situation before me. I agree with the above observations and I should be loathe to depart from them. Circumstances change, of course, and the way is always open to the appellant to renew his citizenship application when his absences from Canada might invite more favourable consideration or when other circumstances might shift the merits to his advantage.
[6] The Court regrets that upon full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, it cannot find sufficient grounds to invite Ministerial consideration.
L-Marcel Joyal
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
November 5, 1998