Alufa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1919 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Upheld Based on Inconsistencies and Insufficient Evidence of Genuine Cohabitation

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 immigration 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 Applicant argued that the officer placed excessive weight on minor inconsistencies in the couple’s evidence and that the decision was procedurally unfair because the officer allegedly contacted his former spouse without giving him an opportunity to respond. The Court rejected both arguments, finding that the officer provided detailed and intelligible reasons supported by the record and that the alleged contact with the former spouse was not established by sufficient evidence.

Key Principle

In assessing the genuineness of a spousal relationship under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR, immigration officers may consider inconsistencies arising from interviews together with documentary evidence concerning the couple’s financial, residential, and personal circumstances. On judicial review, the Court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its assessment for that of the officer, particularly where the officer has specialized expertise in assessing the genuineness of relationships. Allegations of procedural unfairness must also be supported by sufficient evidence demonstrating that undisclosed information was actually obtained and relied upon.

Background

The Applicant, a Nigerian citizen, had previously applied for 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, who subsequently sponsored him for permanent residence. The application included a marriage certificate, driver’s licence showing the same address, text exchanges, photographs, support letters, and tax documents. The couple was interviewed separately and together. The officer identified several inconsistencies, including their inability to provide each other’s telephone numbers, conflicting accounts of the Applicant’s employment, disagreement about who paid wedding and application expenses, inconsistent accounts of the marriage proposal, differing answers concerning shared assets and religious attendance, and inconsistencies concerning the Applicant’s visits to his children. The officer also considered information suggesting that the Applicant might not reside at the claimed address.

Court Findings

• The Officer Reasonably Assessed the Relationship Evidence

The Court rejected the Applicant’s argument that the officer focused excessively on minor inconsistencies. The officer considered both the documentary evidence and the interview responses and provided detailed reasons explaining why the evidence did not establish genuine cohabitation and financial interdependence. The Applicant’s submissions largely repeated explanations already provided in response to procedural fairness letters and amounted to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which is not the Court’s role on judicial review.

• Multiple Inconsistencies Could Support the Officer’s Conclusion

The Court emphasized that the fact that another interpretation of the evidence was possible did not make the officer’s decision unreasonable. The officer was entitled to consider the cumulative effect of inconsistencies concerning the couple’s living arrangements, finances, personal knowledge, and relationship history. The reasons were found to be intelligible, transparent, and justified on the evidentiary record.

• Procedural Fairness Allegation Was Unsupported

The Applicant alleged that the officer contacted his former spouse and obtained information that influenced the refusal without giving him an opportunity to respond. However, the Certified Tribunal Record contained no evidence of such contact. The Applicant’s affidavit provided only a general assertion and no details about what was allegedly discussed, while no affidavit was provided by the former spouse. 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 certified. The decision confirms that officers may rely on cumulative inconsistencies and the absence of meaningful financial and residential interdependence when assessing relationship genuineness, provided their conclusions are reasonably supported by the record.

Case Citation:

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