Date: 19980406
Docket: T-2261-97
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
TE SHENG LU,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
Friday, April 3, 1998 as edited)
ROTHSTEIN, J.:
[1] The appellant was absent from Canada for 882 days out of the 1095 days immediately preceding the date of his citizenship application. In the three years immediately after his landing, he was away 1047 out of 1088 days or 96% of the time. Notwithstanding this, his argument is that he has centralized his mode of living in Canada.
[2] Regrettably, this case raises credibility concerns. I will outline some examples. One of the reasons the appellant gave for being outside of Canada is to look after his father who he says is blind. He says he is the oldest child and has an obligation to look after the father. However, on his application for citizenship in that portion indicating his absences from Canada, the reasons for being outside Canada are business, sale of property and vacation. There is no mention of having to look after his father.
[3] From December 24th, 1995 to June 6th, 1996, the date of his application, he was in Canada. When asked to explain why he could stay here for that period when he could not stay at other times, he said that a nurse was looking after his father, and his father gave him permission to leave. There is no explanation why the nurse could not look after his father at other times, or why his father gave him permission to leave at this particular time.
[4] According to his 1996 income tax return, his interest income is approximately $24,000. or $2,000. per month. The applicant says he does not work. Under oath he testified that his living expenses were $3,000. per month. However, he also testified that he pays a life insurance premium of $1,000. per month, he owns a $750,000. house in Toronto, which has property taxes of $9,000., he drives two vehicles including a Mercedes and he has two children in school. I do not believe that his expenses are only $3,000. per month.
[5] The appellant is a medical doctor and is 51 years of age. He has a clinic in Taiwan. When asked why he does not work, he says that he wants to sell his clinic in Taiwan. The clinic is listed with a real estate agent. He has not given any adequate explanation as to why he needs to be there virtually 96% of each year in order to sell his clinic. I do not believe that he has to be in Taiwan in order to sell his clinic at all, and I think he probably is working as a doctor at the medical clinic.
[6] I have no reason to believe that the appellant's wife and children may not be eligible for citizenship in Canada, and indeed, they may have been granted citizenship. However, the appellant has not been present in Canada and has not otherwise centralized his mode of living in Canada. The appeal must be dismissed.
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
APRIL 6, 1998