Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vaah, 2017 FC 916 : Citizenship Approval Overturned Because Judge Failed to Properly Assess the Applicant’s Residence in Canada

The Federal Court reviewed a citizenship judge’s decision approving a Canadian citizenship application despite the applicant having spent substantial periods outside Canada.

The Court overturned the approval because the citizenship judge failed to properly determine whether the applicant had established residence in Canada before his absences and whether those absences were genuinely temporary.

Key Principle

Under the Citizenship Act applicable to the application, an applicant generally needed 1,095 days of residence within the preceding four years.

At the time, certain judicial interpretations permitted consideration of residence based on the applicant’s established home and connections to Canada, even during temporary absences.

However, an applicant must first establish residence in Canada before relying on temporary absences as periods of continued residence.

Decision-makers must also meaningfully assess whether absences are temporary or reflect an ongoing pattern of living and working abroad.

Background

Thomas Clifford Kwasie Vaah, a Ghanaian citizen employed by the United Nations, became a Canadian permanent resident on December 24, 2010.

He applied for citizenship with his family in April 2014 despite acknowledging a shortfall of 768 days against the 1,095-day requirement.

His employment required frequent international assignments, including travel to conflict zones.

Mr. Vaah owned a Canadian home, maintained a mortgage and regularly returned to visit his wife and children, who resided in Canada.

The citizenship judge approved his application, finding that he had maintained his ordinary way of life in Canada despite working abroad.

The Minister challenged that decision.

Court Findings

The Federal Court identified two significant errors.

First, the citizenship judge failed to establish whether Mr. Vaah had genuinely become resident in Canada before his extended absences began.

He had stayed in Canada for only 12 days after becoming a permanent resident before leaving for another overseas assignment.

Although he subsequently purchased a Canadian home in 2012, the judge did not explain whether residence had been established at the beginning of the relevant period.

Second, the judge failed to adequately examine whether his repeated employment-related absences were temporary.

Mr. Vaah regularly spent six to eight weeks abroad, returning to Canada for relatively short periods between assignments.

The Court emphasized that family connections and home ownership were relevant but did not eliminate the need to examine the nature and duration of his absences.

The Court did not conclude that his employment necessarily prevented him from meeting the historical residence requirement. Rather, the citizenship judge had failed to provide sufficient analysis.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the Minister’s judicial review, set aside the citizenship approval and returned the application to another citizenship judge for reconsideration.

No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vaah, 2017 FC 916 CanLII