EDITOR’S NOTE: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Federal Courts Reports.
Citizenship and Immigration
Status in Canada
Citizens
Application for judicial review of decision by respondent Minister’s delegate to revoke applicant’s citizenship — Applicant, then citizen of China, married Canadian citizen who sponsored him for permanent residence — Applicant became Canadian citizen in 2011 — Marriage was marriage of convenience — Respondent initiated citizenship revocation proceedings pursuant to Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 (Act), s. 10 — Applicant conceded the misrepresentation — Explained that he acted in this manner because he is gay, thought this was only way to avoid returning to China, where he would be persecuted — Asserted that he had been in a same-sex relationship for more than ten years — Also invoked his establishment in Canada, indicating that revoking his citizenship would render him stateless — Delegate found insufficient evidence of applicant’s same-sex relationship — Gave little weight to applicant’s establishment in Canada because of misrepresentation — Also found that Chinese law afforded applicant “pathway” to have his Chinese citizenship restored — Lastly, delegate indicated that applicant would not automatically be removed from Canada, that any hardship attendant upon removal could be addressed at later stage — Delegate’s decision unreasonable — Exercise of discretion conferred by Act, s. 10(3.1)(a) marred by fallacious reasoning, failure to meaningfully address applicant’s submissions — Consideration of applicant’s submissions by respondent’s delegate regarding statelessness, establishment unreasonable — No genuine assessment of whether revocation of applicant’s citizenship was proportionate response to his misconduct — This resulting from “clear logical fallacies” in reasoning of delegate — Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (Convention), 30 August 1961, [1978] Can. T.S. No. 32, 989 U.N.T.S. 175, Art. 8 irrelevant herein — Parliament chose to go beyond Canada’s international law obligations by mandating consideration of statelessness even where revocation of citizenship for misrepresentation contemplated — Exception in Convention, Art. 8 cannot be used to diminish respondent’s duty to consider statelessness before revoking citizenship — Clear logical fallacy to suggest otherwise — An interpretation of s. 10(3.1)(a) according to which concrete consequences of statelessness never considered, simply because it is uncertain whether applicant will become stateless or not, is concerning — Delegate actually considered applicant’s establishment, found that special relief not warranted — However, even if decision read in this manner, obvious that conclusion of delegate regarding establishment heavily influenced by the unreasonable finding — Decision quashed — Matter remitted to different delegate for reconsideration — Application allowed.
Wei v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (T-1640-22, 2023 FC 826, Grammond J., reasons for judgment dated June 9, 2023, 10 pp.)