Singh v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
T-2040-98
MacKay J.
26/5/99
12 pp.
Residency requirements-Appeal from Citizenship Judge's decision applicant had not met residency requirements for citizenship-Applicant, native of India, studied in Canada under student visa since 1990-Received PhD in veterinary medicine in October 1994 and became lecturer at University of Prince Edward Island in veterinary medicine-Became permanent resident in January 1995-In September 1995, until August 1997, accepted post-doctoral fellowship in animal retrovirology at Texas A&M University in U.S.-Then returned to Canada and applied for citizenship-In October 1997, accepted second post-doctoral fellowship in U.S. university-Found employment in Canada in July 1998-Citizenship application considered in August 1998 and rejected in September 1998-Appeal allowed-Fact applicant now associate professor of veterinary medicine at University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon admitted in evidence at hearing of appeal-Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 410 (F.C.T.D.) (review should be limited to ensuring citizenship judge, on proper understanding of one of two interpretations of residency requirements in case law, correctly applied law to facts of case) applied-Citizenship Judge stated law as follows: Federal Court precedents require that, to establish residence, individual must show, in mind and in fact, centralization of mode of living in Canada; if such residence established, absences from Canada do not affect residence, as long as demonstrated that individual left for temporary purpose only and maintained in Canada some real and tangible form of residence-Judge then erred in applying law to facts of case-Decision ignoring length and quality of appellant's time in Canada: from 1990 to October 1997, lived in Canada 5 1/2 years, and 2 years in Texas-Serious involvement in student and community life in Canada-Appellant made good use of opportunity to learn about Canada and to participate in social life of country-Had effectively cut his ties to India-Appellant had centred his life in Canada, and had done so well before leaving to continue research studies in fall of 1995-Temporary nature of absences from Canada, in particular nature and purpose of post-doctoral research fellowship in U.S. do not appear to have been considered-Necessary advanced study and research more readily available in U.S. than in Canada-Appellant established residence in Canada before leaving for advanced studies in U.S. in 1995-Always intended to return to Canada, and did-Always maintained ties to Canada-Maintained continuing address-Citizenship Court Judge therefore failed to correctly apply law concerning residency requirements, as he identified it, to facts of case.