Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 790 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Properly Assess the Nature of the Relationship

The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a refusal of permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class (SCLPC). The Applicant was excluded under paragraph 125(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) because her sponsor had not declared her as his common-law partner in his previous permanent residence application. The Court found that the Officer misconstrued the evidence, failed to properly assess whether the couple remained in a conjugal relationship during their alleged breakup, and provided unintelligible reasons.

Key Principle

Living in the same residence does not, by itself, establish common-law cohabitation. Cohabitation involves a marriage-like relationship and requires consideration of factors such as financial interdependence, sexual and personal behaviour, household responsibilities, social activities, and the parties’ intentions. Where an alleged breakup is central to determining common-law status, the officer must assess the nature of the relationship during that period and clearly explain whether the parties remained in a conjugal relationship.

Background

The Applicant and her sponsor, both Vietnamese citizens, lived together in Canada from November 2019. They claimed they broke up between January and May 2021 but continued living together because neither could afford to move out. The sponsor described them as living together as “old friends” while sharing rent and utilities. They later reconciled and married on February 14, 2022.

During the alleged breakup, the sponsor applied for permanent residence under the Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident pathway and identified the Applicant as his former common-law partner. After becoming a permanent resident, he sponsored her under the SCLPC. The Officer concluded that the couple had remained in a conjugal relationship since November 2019 and became common-law partners in November 2020, resulting in the Applicant’s exclusion from the class.

Court Findings

• The Officer Misconstrued the Evidence

Neither the Applicant nor her sponsor stated that they were “cohabiting” during the breakup. The sponsor instead described them as living together as “old friends.” The Officer nevertheless treated the evidence as establishing continued conjugal cohabitation. The Court found this to be a material misconstruction of the evidence.

• Shared Residence Was Insufficient

The Officer relied primarily on financial commingling but did not properly assess whether the relationship retained the characteristics of a conjugal relationship. The Court emphasized that both subjective intentions and objective indicators must be considered.

• The Reasons Were Unintelligible

The Officer stated that a breakup could have occurred but also noted there was no documentary proof of it, while relying on evidence that the parties continued living together. The Court could not determine whether the Officer accepted the breakup or found that it did not interrupt the common-law relationship. This ambiguity affected a central issue in the exclusion analysis.

• Clear Reasons Were Required

Because the decision could permanently prevent the Applicant from being sponsored by her spouse, the Officer was required to provide clear, justified, and intelligible reasons. The Court found that the decision fell short of the Vavilov standard.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review and referred the matter to a different decision-maker for redetermination. No question for certification was raised.

Case Citation:
Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 790 (CanLII)