Date: 19990202
Docket: T-1592-98
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
- and -
YOUSEF SALIM JABSHEH
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is appealing1 from a decision of a Citizenship Judge who approved the respondent's citizenship application on the grounds that, among other things, he satisfied the provisions regarding residence requirements in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. Under this paragraph, an applicant must, in the four years immediately preceding his application, have accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada.
[2] With his citizenship application, the respondent submitted a document reporting his absences from Canada during the four years preceding the date of his application; by his count, his absences totalled 339 days. Thus he satisfied the residence requirement since he had resided in the country for more than 1095 days (3 years) during the four years preceding the date of his application.
[3] In support of her appeal, the Minister argues that the Citizenship Judge made a decision based on an erroneous finding of fact, disregarding some of the material before her. The respondent did not attend this appeal hearing and did not make any representations.
[4] First, a review of the calculation of the days of absence in the document submitted by the respondent reveals that the total absences are 349 days rather than 339 days. Moreover, a check of the respondent's passport indicates that, in preparing his list of absences from Canada, he failed to indicate some trips, including a trip to Zurich, Switzerland on May 15, 1994, to the United States on May 20, 1994, to France on October 25 and 28, 1994, and to Belgium on April 20, 1996. According to the list of absences provided by the respondent, all these trips took place when he was supposed to be in Canada. The Court can only conclude that the respondent overlooked reporting or intentionally reduced his days of absence. A simple passport check by the Citizenship Judge would have revealed the error.
[5] In the case at bar, insofar as the respondent did not prove in his citizenship application that he satisfied the residence requirements set out by the Act, and since the Citizenship Judge erred in assessing the evidence, the appeal should be allowed.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed. Consequently, the decision of Citizenship Judge Jeannine C. Beaubien of June 11, 1998, approving the respondent's citizenship application, is set aside.
"Pierre Denault"
Judge
Certified true translation
Monica F. Chamberlain
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO: T-1592-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION v. YOUSEF SALIM JABSHEH |
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 29, 1999
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DENAULT, J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 2, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Daniel Latulipe
FOR THE APPLICANT
No appearance
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Morris Rosenberg
FOR THE APPLICANT
No appearance
FOR THE RESPONDENT
__________________1 Al though the case at bar is an appeal under subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act (R.S., c. C-89), appropriate procedure to bring such an appeal isan application for judicial review under Rule 300 (c) of the Federal Court Rules (1998).