Le Canada offre la citoyenneté par naturalisation et par la naissance sur le territoire.
Pour être admissible à la citoyenneté par naturalisation, les Canadiens ayant quatre années de en tant que résidents permanents au cours des six années précédentes peuvent demander la citoyenneté canadienne. Les autres exigences incluent:
• Avoir 18 ans ou plus ;
• Avoir une connaissance suffisante des langues requises pour la citoyenneté, si les candidats son âgés de moins de 64 ans;
• Ne pas être sous une mesure de renvoi;
• Ne pas avoir une interdiction criminelle;
• Payer les frais de traitement du gouvernement.
Les demandes sont présentées au bureau de la citoyenneté à Sydney, en Nouvelle-Écosse où elles sont premièrement révisées pour s’assurer qu’elles sont complètes et que la période de résidence de 4 ans a été atteinte. Dans les 12 mois à compter du dépôt, les demandeurs seront tenus d’assister à une entrevue pour démontrer leur connaissance du Canada dans l’une des langues officielles du Canada.
Il y a environ 260 000 personnes qui ont obtenu la citoyenneté canadienne en 2014.
Pour un résumé des exigences pour se qualifier pour la citoyenneté canadienne, lire la suite ici.
2015-01-29 | 2015 CF 116 | T-346-14
El-Husseini c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)
Procedural fairness requires a citizenship judge to take sufficient measures to inform a citizenship applicant of any evidence-related problems with his application before a final decision is rendered.
El-Husseini sought judicial review of a citizenship judge’s decision to reject his citizenship application.
After an interview with a citizenship judge, El-Husseini’s application was rejected because he was unable to prove that he had resided in Canada prior to January 2008. El-Husseini contended that he had brought evidence to the interview proving his presence in Canada prior to January 2008, but had never been asked to furnish it. The citizenship judge contended, on the other hand, that El-Husseini had been unable to provide the evidence when asked.
In light of conflicting affidavits, the Federal Court opined that there was a miscommunication between El-Husseini and the citizenship judge concerning the evidence. In light of this miscommunication, the Court confirmed that it is a citizenship judge’s responsibility to clearly inform a citizenship applicant of any evidence-related concerns regarding his application before a final decision is rendered. Given the citizenship judge’s failure to clear up the misunderstanding regarding the evidence El-Husseini was supposed to provide, the Court found the rejection of El-Huseeini’s application to have been a breach of procedural fairness.
The application for judicial review was allowed and El-Husseini’s application was sent for re-evaluation by a new citizenship judge.
2015-02-04 | 2015 CF 142 | T-338-14
Miji c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)
If a citizenship applicant satisfies s. 5(1) of the Citizenship Act under a qualitative analysis, it is a violation of procedural fairness to reject his application based on a failure to satisfy s. 5(1) under a quantitative analysis.
Miji sought judicial review of a citizenship judge’s decision to reject his application for Canadian citizenship.
Miji’s application was rejected because he had failed to prove that he had resided in Canada for the requisite number of days as per s. 5(1) of the Citizenship Act
The Federal Court argued that there are three methods by which a citizenship judge can determine whether an applicant has satisfied the requirements of s. 5(1). The first is quantitative and involves calculating exactly how many days an applicant has spent in Canada. The second and third methods are qualitative and involve an analysis of whether the applicant has centralized his ordinary mode of living in Canada and whether the applicant lives regularly and habitually in Canada.
While the citizenship judge rejected Miji’s application under the quantitative method, the court found that Miji’s application would have succeeded had the judge used either of the two qualitative methods of analysis. The court thus found the rejection of Miji’s application to have violated the principles of procedural fairness.
The request for judicial review was allowed