Alufa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1919 : Federal Court Upholds Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Where Evidence Failed to Establish Genuine Cohabitation to establish Common Law Relationship

The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a refusal of permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant and his spouse were cohabiting in a genuine relationship as required by subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). The Court found that the Officer reasonably assessed the documentary and interview evidence and that the Applicant’s arguments effectively asked the Court to reweigh the evidence.

Key Principle

On judicial review, the Court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its assessment for that of an immigration officer, particularly in matters involving the genuineness of a marital relationship. Where an officer considers the evidence, identifies material inconsistencies, provides the applicants an opportunity to respond, and gives detailed reasons explaining why those explanations are not accepted, the decision may fall within the range of reasonable outcomes under Vavilov.

Background

The Applicant, a Nigerian citizen, had previously sought refugee protection with his former spouse and children and was found inadmissible for serious criminality in 2018. After divorcing his first wife, he married his current spouse in 2019. His current spouse subsequently sponsored him for permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class.

The application included a marriage certificate, driver’s licence, text exchanges, photographs, support letters and tax documents. The couple was interviewed separately and together. The Officer identified numerous concerns, including inconsistent answers concerning their telephone numbers, employment, wedding and sponsorship expenses, marriage proposal, birth control, joint assets, religious attendance and the Applicant’s visits to his children. The Officer also considered information suggesting that the Applicant might not actually reside at the address where the couple claimed to cohabit.

Court Findings

• The Officer Reasonably Considered the Relationship Evidence

The Court found that the Officer considered both the documentary evidence and interview responses. Although the couple’s driver’s licences showed the same address, the Officer reasonably gave this evidence limited weight because changing an Ontario driver’s licence address did not require proof of residence. The Officer also found insufficient evidence of financial interdependence or intertwined lives.

• The Cumulative Inconsistencies Supported the Decision

The Officer identified several inconsistencies between the Applicant and his spouse and concluded that their answers were evasive and vague. The Court held that the Applicant’s explanations merely offered another interpretation of the evidence and did not establish a reviewable error. The existence of an alternative interpretation does not make a decision unreasonable.

• The Court Would Not Reweigh the Evidence

The Court emphasized that assessing the genuineness of a relationship falls within the specialized expertise of immigration officers. The Applicant’s arguments largely repeated explanations already provided to the Officer and therefore amounted to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which is outside the Court’s role on judicial review.

• Procedural Fairness Was Not Established

The Applicant alleged that the Officer contacted his former spouse and obtained information without giving him an opportunity to respond. However, the Certified Tribunal Record contained no evidence of such contact. The Applicant’s affidavit provided no details regarding what was allegedly discussed, and no affidavit from the former spouse was provided. The Court therefore found the evidence insufficient to establish procedural unfairness.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the refusal of the permanent residence application. No question for certification was proposed or arose.

Case Citation:

Alufa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1919 (CanLII)