| Citation: |
Hao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 46, [2011] 1 F.C.R. D-14 |
T-1073-10 |
Citizenship and Immigration
Status in Canada
Citizens
Appeal from decision of Citizenship Judge refusing application for citizenship—Citizenship Judge relying on analytical approach in Pourghasemi (Re) (1993), 19 Imm. L.R. (2d) 259 (F.C.T.D.) wherein potential citizen having to establish physical presence in Canada—Object, purpose of Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29, s. 5(1)(c) as discussed in Pourghasemi to ensure individuals “Canadianized”—Citizenship Judge finding applicant not meeting minimum requirement for physical presence—Issue whether Citizenship Judge erring when choosing to apply one of several tests for determining residency requirements and decision not otherwise unreasonable—Currently two residency tests: strict physical presence or residency as established by Koo (Re), [1993] 1 F.C. 286 (T.D.) qualitative factors—Notwithstanding dominance of Koo test, physical presence test continuing to be accepted by Court—Open to citizenship judges to choose either test as long as test reasonably applied to facts before them—Court unable to find Citizenship Judge’s decision herein unreasonable—While inconsistent application of law unfortunate, not every example of such inconsistency unreasonable—If situation “scandalous”, remains for Parliament to correct problem—Appeal dismissed.
Hao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (T-1073-10, 2011 FC 46, Mosley J., judgment dated January 28, 2011, 20 pp.)