Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971204

Docket: T-2427-96

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

     AKHTAR JAVAD POUR NAMVAR,

     Appellant

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ROULEAU, J.

[1]      The appellant appeals the decision of a Citizenship Judge rendered on June 13, 1996, refusing her application for Canadian citizenship on the basis she did not comply with subsection 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act which requires that an applicant have an "adequate knowledge of one of the official languages" and that she did not have an adequate knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship as requires by paragraph 5(1)(e) of the 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.

[2]      The appellant was born in Mianeh, Iran, on May 25, 1942. She entered Canada on June 6, 1988, accompanied by her husband and children and was granted landed immigrant status on January 25, 1993. However, according to the Notice of Appeal, the applicant is mentally ill and suffers from chronic anxiety disorder, panic attacks, chronic mood and sleep disorder. There is no medical evidence on the record provided from the Citizenship Judge application.

[3]      In her Notice of Appeal, the appellant appeals on the following grounds:

1. The Citizenship Judge refused to consider the letter of her doctor explaining that stressful situations, such as exam setting, makes the applicant loose control of her memory and concentration.

2. The Citizenship Judge breached principles of fairness by not considering the conclusions of the applicant's doctor or the integrity of the doctor's who prepared them. Therefore, the Citizenship Judge acted unfairly and based his decision on speculation.

3. The Citizenship Judge erred in fact when he stated that the applicant was not able to provide any evidence in support of a waiver based on compassionate grounds.

[4]      Counsel appeared before me at Toronto on November 18, 1997 and submitted a number of affidavits. The first one is from Dr. Majid Boozary, a general practitioner, who has been treating this appellant since 1989 and confirms that she has a chronic anxiety disorder and panic attacks and that she has extreme difficulty and has little control over her memory and concentration. She is on a series of neuroleptic medications and her physician confirms that in stressful situations she loses control of her memory.

[5]      The Citizenship Judge was no doubt correct in determining that the appellant did not have an adequate knowledge of Canada or had no knowledge of any of the two official languages. She arrived in Canada accompanied by her husband and children who are now all Canadian citizens and she is unable to travel with her children and husband outside of Canada without a passport.

[6]      I am satisfied that given the powers under 15(1) to recommend a favourable exercise of discretion on compassionate grounds.

[7]      With the approval of the amicus curiae, I am hereby recommending to the Minister to exercise his discretion in favour of granting citizenship to this appellant.

     JUDGE

OTTAWA, Ontario

December 4, 1997