Abdelgalil Abdalla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1649 : Common-Law Partner Status Under the IRPR Requires Proof of One-Year Cohabitation and Prior Physical Separation From Existing Spouses

In Abdelgalil Abdalla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1649, the Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review concerning the Applicant’s exclusion from the family class. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant qualified as the common-law partner of his sponsor because he had failed to establish that his previous marriages had broken down and that he had lived separate and apart from his two wives for at least one year. The Court found that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidence and that the Applicant had failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

Background

The Applicant, a Sudanese citizen residing in the UAE, remained legally married to two other women. He stated that both relationships had ended in separation, but explained that the marriages had not been legally dissolved because his former wives’ UAE residency depended on remaining married to him.

The Applicant met the Sponsor in 2017 and claimed that they began living together as a common-law couple in August 2017. They followed Islamic tradition and obtained a religious marriage certificate in March 2021. The Sponsor subsequently travelled to Canada and was granted refugee status. She later included the Applicant as her dependent common-law partner in her permanent residence application.

The Officer raised concerns about the Applicant’s continued marriages and the limited evidence establishing both his separation from his other wives and his claimed common-law relationship. The Applicant provided rental agreements, insurance documents and letters from friends, but the Officer remained unsatisfied.

Key Principle

A person claiming common-law partner status must establish both the required period of conjugal cohabitation and the breakdown of any previous marriage or relationship. Where an applicant remains legally married to other spouses, evidence of separation and living separate and apart becomes particularly important.

An applicant bears the onus of providing sufficient and reasonably available corroborating evidence to establish the factual basis of the claim. Evidence of a romantic relationship with a new partner does not, by itself, establish that previous marriages have ended or that the applicant has lived separate and apart from those spouses for the required period.

Court Findings

• Separation from Previous Wives Was Not Sufficiently Established

The Court found that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that he was no longer living with either of his previous wives. The statement concerning separation from his first wife did not provide separation dates or residential details, while there was no declaration from his second wife confirming separation.

• Cohabitation Evidence Did Not Resolve the Separation Issue

Although rental agreements and other evidence supported the Applicant’s relationship with the Sponsor, this evidence did not establish that he had physically separated from his previous wives. The Officer was therefore entitled to conclude that the Applicant had not demonstrated the required one-year period of separation and common-law cohabitation.

• The Applicant Bore the Evidentiary Burden

The Court emphasized that applicants must provide clear evidence supporting their immigration claims. The Officer was not required to accept unsupported assertions where additional corroborating evidence was reasonably available. The Applicant’s failure to provide sufficient documentary evidence was fatal to his claim.

• The Court Would Not Reweigh the Evidence

The Applicant’s arguments effectively invited the Court to reassess the evidence and reach a different conclusion. The Court declined to do so, finding that the Officer’s decision was transparent, intelligible and justified based on the totality of the evidence.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the Officer’s decision. No question for certification was raised or certified.

Case Citation:

Abdelgalil Abdalla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1649 (CanLII)