Date: 20040129
Docket: T-1439-03
Citation: 2004 FC 145
Ottawa, Ontario, this 29th day of January, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL L. PHELAN
BETWEEN:
REZVAN YAZDANI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PHELAN J.
[1] The applicant appeared before Citizenship Judge Rita M. Cox on June 5, 2003 regarding her application for Canadian citizenship.
[2] Counsel for the applicant, properly and readily conceded, that the applicant did not have an adequate command of either official language nor did she have adequate knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
[3] The Citizenship Judge rejected the application for citizenship on the above basis finding that the applicant had failed to comply with paragraphs 5(1)(d) and (e) of the Citizenship Act (the "Act").
[4] The Citizenship Judge then turned to the issue of making a recommendation for the exercise of discretion by the Minister on compassionate grounds. The Citizenship Judge found that no evidence was presented at the hearing of any special circumstances that would justify a recommendation under either subsections 5(3) or 5(4) of the Act.
[5] It should be noted that the applicant chose to attend the citizenship hearing without counsel, and had indicated that the only special needs she had was for the services of a translator.
[6] The applicant's issue with the Citizenship Judge's determination is that she allegedly did not make adequate inquiries about any special circumstances.
[7] As a factual matter, there is no evidence on this issue one way or the other. What is known from the record is that the applicant did not indicate that any special circumstances exist.
[8] I find that the Citizenship Judge committed no error of law in rendering her decision.
[9] This case is almost identical to Huynh v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2003] F.C. No. 1431 in which Justice Harrington rejected an application for review on the grounds that a citizenship judge cannot be criticized for not making a recommendation on "materials not before him".
[10] The obligation to be adequately represented and to put forward the necessary evidence rests on the applicant (see Hassan v. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [2002] F.C.T. No. 755). There is no obligation on a citizenship judge to embark on an inquiry which an applicant has not raised.
[11] As admitted by counsel, the applicant has a right to reapply; perhaps this time she will attend with counsel. The only consequence of this decision for the applicant is that she must start her application process again with the resultant delay in proceeding to a determination.
[12] Therefore, I would dismiss this application for judicial review. No costs were requested.
"Michael L. Phelan"
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
January 29, 2004
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1439-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: REZVAN YAZDANI
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
& IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: Wednesday, January 28, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER OF: PHELAN J.
DATED: Thursday, January 29, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Robert I. Blanshay
FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Marianne Zoric
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Robert I. Blanshay
Toronto, Ontario
FOR APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR RESPONDENT