Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Aman, 2017 FC 723 : Citizenship Approval Overturned Because the Applicant Spent Too Much Time Outside Canada

The Federal Court reviewed a citizenship judge’s decision approving an applicant who spent most of the relevant four-year period working outside Canada.

The Court overturned the approval, finding that strong family ties, property ownership and financial responsibilities could not sufficiently compensate for his extensive physical absences.

Key Principle

Under paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, as applicable to the applicant’s July 2014 application, an applicant generally needed three years of residence within the preceding four years.

The Koo test permitted a qualitative assessment of whether an applicant had centralized their life in Canada.

However, having family, property and financial ties in Canada does not automatically establish sufficient residence when the applicant spends most of their time abroad.

Employment obligations and financial hardship may explain absences but do not necessarily satisfy statutory residency requirements.

Background

The applicant, Motchian Aman, a citizen of Côte d’Ivoire, became a Canadian permanent resident in December 2008.

His wife and children settled in Canada, while he continued undertaking international assignments for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

He explained that he could not obtain suitable employment in Canada and needed to work abroad to support his family.

He applied for citizenship on July 24, 2014.

During the relevant four-year period, he reported:

• 420 days physically present in Canada
• 1,040 days outside Canada
• 675-day shortfall against the residence requirement

In January 2017, a citizenship judge approved his application using the qualitative Koo residency test.

The Minister challenged that decision.

Court Findings

The Federal Court accepted that the applicant maintained meaningful connections to Canada, including his spouse, children, home ownership and tax filings.

Nevertheless, the citizenship judge had incorrectly treated his first 19 months after obtaining permanent residence as an extended period of physical presence, despite his departure for overseas employment shortly after arriving.

Although this error alone was not decisive, the Court identified additional problems.

The applicant’s repeated overseas assignments were not sufficiently temporary, and his limited physical presence did not demonstrate that he regularly or customarily lived in Canada.

The Court acknowledged his commendable humanitarian work and financial responsibilities but emphasized that these circumstances could not replace the statutory residence requirement.

The citizenship judge’s application of the Koo criteria was therefore unreasonable.

 Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the Minister’s application, set aside the citizenship approval and returned the matter to a different citizenship judge for reconsideration.

No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Aman, 2017 FC 723 CanLII