links18 said:
Thanks, but the courts seem to suggest there is a avenue open to him to ask for Canadian citizenship that he has not yet taken, but on what grounds? A personal appeal to the minister?
As I previously noted, this is a complicated case, and some of the twists and turns are at the least perplexing, albeit for some of these there may be an explanation, like the fact that when this individual's parent became Canadian citizens he was not included in that process because they thought he already was a citizen . . . except that he had become a Permanent Resident with them when they became PRs.
In any event, much of it seems to be in the vein of a
Catch-22, an impossible qualification, something which requires a person to have a status which in turn disqualifies that person -- this comes from the novel by Joseph Heller and a character who wanted to be relieved of duty during WW II because he was mentally incompetent, but to obtain designation as mentally incompetent he would have to ask for it, but anyone who asked for it was clearly not mentally incompetent -- or as stated in the novel, its
catch-22. (Well, that's my rough explanation anyway, been decades since I read the novel or saw the movie based on it.)
A lot of weight is put on the fact that this individual never sought a declaration of citizenship from India. And not only are the decisions in part premised on that being an avenue which is open to him and should be pursued, but it is also posited as a prerequisite to any H&C discretionary application for citizenship (section 5.(4) in the
Citizenship Act), and applying for such a discretionary grant is posited as another avenue not pursued.
In any event, the Federal Court decision dismissing this individual's application to be declared a citizen can be read here:
http://canlii.ca/t/gdq23
The Federal Court of Appeals decision denying the appeal of the Federal Court's decision can be read here:
http://canlii.ca/t/gjfcg
As I recall the latter goes into some detail about the supposed alternative avenues open to the individual, but perhaps both do (been a long while since I read the Federal Court's decision; the Court of Appeals decision was just last summer).
As I recall, the notorious Donald Rennie was among the three Federal Court of Appeals judges deciding this case. Donald Rennie is the Federal Court justice (promoted shortly afterward to Federal Court of Appeal, and a solid Harper man if ever there was one) who dismissed Galati's challenge to Bill C-24 and in doing so went way, way out of his way to decide issues that he ruled it would be inappropriate to decide (a reverse sort of
Catch-22?), including that there is no birth right to citizenship in Canada. (In fact, he ruled there is no constitutional right to citizenship at all, that citizenship is purely a statutorily based status . . . which is why in my previous post I bolded "statutory" in referring to the "
statutory rule that a person born in Canada is automatically a Canadian citizen.")
As a Federal Court Justice, and quite soon after being appointed, Rennie was the first to specifically rule that the only proper test for residency was physical presence, contradicting three decades of prior law, even though there had been no change in the law in the meantime. While not all the other justices who soon agreed were, like him, appointed under Harper's watch, most of those taking that hard line position were.
In any event, Deepan Budlakoti got himself into serious legal trouble young and is not in a good place for now. What Canada can do with him is not clear. India declined to issue a Travel Document. I am not sure that Canada can force this individual to even seek status in India. Without status in another country, there is no place to physically deport him.
A real can of worms some might say.
