Maan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1805 : Federal Court Upholds Spousal Sponsorship Refusal After Officer Finds Marriage Not Genuine and Primarily for Immigration Purposes

The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the refusal of an inland spousal sponsorship application. The immigration officer concluded that the Applicant’s marriage had been entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status under subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). The Court found that the officer’s assessment was reasonable and that the Applicant had failed to establish any procedural unfairness.

Key Principle

Under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR, a foreign national is not considered a spouse if the marriage was entered into primarily to acquire immigration status or if the relationship is not genuine. On judicial review, the Court must not reweigh evidence concerning relationship genuineness. Where the evidentiary record is mixed, an officer may reasonably reach a conclusion within the range of acceptable outcomes, provided the decision is supported by a rational analysis.

Background

The Applicant, an Indian citizen, came to Canada in December 2016 on a study permit. He enrolled in an Electrical Engineering Technician program but withdrew after approximately eight months and did not subsequently resume his studies in a sustained manner. In December 2019, he met his spouse, Ramneek Kaur Padda, and they began a relationship. They married in April 2020 and their marriage was officially registered in October 2020. The Applicant applied for permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class in October 2021.

During the assessment, IRCC requested additional evidence regarding the genuineness of the marriage. In June 2024, an officer contacted the Applicant and was told that he and his spouse lived together in Brampton. The officer subsequently contacted the landlord and another resident of the property. Their statements raised concerns about whether the Applicant and his spouse actually lived together. The couple was then interviewed, and the officer identified several discrepancies in their evidence. The application was refused on the basis that the marriage had been entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

Court Findings

• Mixed Evidence Supported the Officer’s Conclusion

Although the Applicant provided a marriage certificate, photographs, financial documents, affidavits, and proof of cohabitation, there was contradictory evidence concerning the couple’s residence. The landlord stated that he was unaware of any women living at the residence, while another roommate indicated that the Applicant had moved out approximately a year earlier. These concerns reasonably prompted the officer to conduct an interview.

• The Court Would Not Reweigh the Evidence

The Court acknowledged that many interview inconsistencies were relatively minor and that it might have reached a different conclusion. However, determining whether a marriage is genuine is not the Court’s role on judicial review. The Applicant bore the burden of establishing that the statutory requirements were met, and the officer’s conclusion was within the range of reasonable outcomes.

• Procedural Fairness Was Satisfied

The Court rejected allegations that the officer was biased because of the Applicant’s criminal proceedings. The criminal history was addressed only after extensive questioning concerning the relationship, and there was no evidence that it played a disproportionate role. The couple was also informed of the concerns and given opportunities to respond during the interview.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. No question was certified. The Court also ordered the Applicant’s counsel to personally pay $750 in costs because of counsel’s failure to appear at the scheduled hearing and failure to adequately communicate with the Court.

Case Citation:

Maan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1805 (CanLII)