Federal Court Decisions

     T-2370-96

     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

     Paramjit Kaur Birk,

     Appellant

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     The appellant appeals the decision of a Citizenship judge rendered on July, 29, 1996, refusing her application for Canadian citizenship on the basis she did not meet the language requirement pursuant to paragraph 5(1)(d) and that she did not have an adequate knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship as required by paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act. The Citizenship Judge also declined to make a recommendation under subsection 15(1) of the Act requesting that the Minister exercise her discretion under subsection 5(3) or 5(4) to grant citizenship on compassionate grounds or for reasons of special hardship.

     The appellant was born in India on December 25, 1969. The appellant was granted landed immigrant status on April 23, 1992. She attended school in India for seven years and in Canada for two years. She is presently married and works as a farm worker.

     On July 29, 1996, the Citizenship Judge found that the applicant did not comply with 5(1)(d) of the Act which requires "an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages" At the hearing, the applicant could not understand or respond to the questions asked by the Citizenship Judge.

     The Citizenship Judge also found, that despite the use of a translator, the appellant did not have an adequate knowledge and understanding of Canada including:

- the name of the Prime Minister's political party;

- who represents Queen Elizabeth In Canada and in B.C. respectively;

-who is the premier of B.C. and the name of his party

- what is the name of B.C. 's Opposition leader

- name the rights of a Canadian citizen

     The applicant also failed the written test.

     In her Notice of Appeal, the appellant does provide explanations why she was unable to provide adequate answers to the Citizenship Judge. According to the appellant, she attempted answering the Citizenship Judge's questions but she was nervous. The Citizenship Judge also wanted her to answer quickly. She tried but this made her even more nervous.

     The appellant appeared before me at Vancouver on October 9, 1997 and, through her interpreter, advised that she had not studied sufficiently to be prepared to satisfy the Court that she had acquired adequate knowledge of Canada nor had she studied sufficiently in English as a second language to meet the proficiency requirements. Through her interpreter, she requested an adjournment which I denied advising the appellant that once she was satisfied that she had a better command of the language and was prepared to answer questions on knowledge of Canada she could simply reapply to the Citizenship judge.

     The appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE

OTTAWA, Ontario

October 22, 1997