A.P. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 906 : Conjugal Partner Sponsorship Refusal Sets Aside After IAD Unreasonably Applied Stereotypes to a Mixed-Orientation Relationship

Key Principle

Subsection 4(1) of the IRPR requires both that the marriage be genuine and that it not have been entered into primarily to obtain immigration status. Evidence that a marriage became genuine later does not necessarily overcome evidence that its original purpose was immigration related. On judicial review, the Court will not reweigh evidence where the IAD has reasonably assessed the record.

Background

The Applicant sponsored her foreign spouse for permanent residence. The IAD dismissed the appeal after finding weaknesses in the evidence concerning the development of the relationship before marriage, including contradictory testimony about when the couple decided to marry and communications that demonstrated little beyond friendship. Although there was some evidence suggesting the marriage may have become genuine in later years, the IAD found that the evidence supporting genuineness largely post-dated the wedding. The Applicant argued that the IAD failed to properly assess the marriage’s purpose and ignored evidence of genuineness.

Court Findings

• Two Requirements Under Subsection 4(1)

The Court confirmed that subsection 4(1) contains two distinct requirements: the marriage must be genuine, and it must not have been entered into primarily to acquire status or a privilege under the IRPA. Both requirements must be satisfied.

• IAD Properly Assessed the Evidence

The IAD did more than merely state a conclusion. It systematically considered the evidence and assessed various factors as positive, neutral, or negative in determining both the genuineness of the marriage over time and its primary purpose. The Court found this approach reasonable.

• Later Genuineness Does Not Resolve Original Purpose

The IAD did not find conclusively that the marriage was genuine at the time of the hearing. It stated that the marriage “may have become genuine” in later years. The Court held that this did not undermine the IAD’s analysis because the bulk of the evidence supporting genuineness post-dated the marriage.

• Court Will Not Reweigh Evidence

The Applicant largely repeated arguments made before the IAD and proposed alternative interpretations of the evidence. The Court held that these arguments effectively invited it to reassess and reweigh the evidence, contrary to Vavilov. The Applicant failed to identify any sufficiently serious error rendering the IAD’s decision unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the IAD’s refusal of the spousal sponsorship appeal. No question was certified. The decision confirms that under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR, current genuineness of a marriage does not necessarily cure evidence that the marriage was initially entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

Case Citation:

A.P. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 906 (CanLII), [2021] 1 FCR 3