Date: 19980122
Docket: T-2877-96
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
CHE NANG HUNG,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the Citizenship Judge dated December 18, 1996, denying the appellant's application for a grant of citizenship on the grounds that the appellant did not meet the following requirements of the Citizenship Act:
| a) paragraph 5(1)(c) - residence; |
| b) paragraph 5(1)(d) - language; and, |
| c) paragraph 5(1)(e) - knowledge |
[2] On the hearing of the appeal, the appellant testified and satisfied me that he now meets the requirements of paragraph 5(1)(d) and of paragraph 5(1)(e) of the Act.
[3] With respect to the residence requirement set out in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act, the evidence was that the appellant was 467 days short of the 1,095 days.
[4] The applicant landed in Canada on January 18, 1993, and applied for a grant of citizenship on March 14, 1996. Prior to landing, he had visited Canada and one of his two sons had been studying in Canada. Prior to his departure for Canada with his wife and other son, the appellant sold his business in Hong Kong. He entered Canada as a member of the investor category and upon his arrival purchased a substantial residence and established a business. He enrolled his son in school in Canada. He has joined a local golf club, is a member of a community group and, except for a brief visit to the United States, takes his vacations in Canada.
[5] His longest absence occurred one month after his arrival, when he left Canada for 125 days to arrange for the completion of his business affairs in Hong Kong and to ship his effects to Canada. The remaining absences from Canada were for the purpose of providing consulting services to clients abroad.
[6] I find that the appellant did establish himself in Canada. He centralized his way of living in Canada and he maintained his residence in Canada notwithstanding his absences for business reasons.
[7] Accordingly, I find that the appellant has also satisfied the residence requirement found in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act.
[8] The appeal is allowed.
__________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
January 22, 1998