Alufa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1919 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Upheld Where Evidence Did Not Establish a Genuine Cohabiting Relationship

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a permanent residence application under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class. The application was refused because the officer was not satisfied that the applicant and his spouse were in a genuine cohabiting relationship as required under section 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the officer reasonably assessed the evidence and that the applicant was attempting to have the Court reweigh the evidence.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that determining whether a marriage is genuine involves a fact-based assessment within the expertise of immigration officers. On judicial review, the Court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its own assessment where multiple interpretations of the evidence are possible. A decision will be upheld if the officer’s reasoning is transparent, intelligible, and supported by the record.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, applied for permanent residence through spousal sponsorship after marrying his current spouse in 2019. The applicant had previously sought refugee protection in Canada with his former spouse and children but was later found inadmissible for serious criminality. His former spouse and children eventually obtained permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

IRCC refused the applicant’s spousal sponsorship application after finding insufficient evidence that the relationship with his current spouse was genuine and that the couple were cohabiting as required by the Regulations.

The couple provided supporting documents, including a marriage certificate, driver’s licences showing the same address, text messages, photographs, support letters, and tax documents. They were also interviewed separately and together by an immigration officer.

➢ Court Findings

• Officer Reasonably Assessed Relationship Evidence

The Court found that the officer reasonably identified concerns about the genuineness of the relationship. The officer noted inconsistencies in the couple’s answers regarding important relationship details, including the marriage proposal, wedding expenses, birth control, shared assets, religious activities, and visits with the applicant’s children.

The officer also found limited evidence of financial interdependence and noted that the couple had not demonstrated the type of shared financial and personal life typically associated with a genuine marriage.

• Applicant Was Seeking Reassessment of Evidence

The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the officer focused on minor inconsistencies. Justice Conroy held that the applicant was effectively asking the Court to reassess and reweigh the evidence, which is not the role of judicial review.

The Court emphasized that another possible interpretation of the evidence does not make a decision unreasonable where the officer’s conclusions fall within the range of acceptable outcomes.

• Procedural Fairness Argument Was Not Established

The applicant argued that the officer improperly contacted his former spouse and relied on information without giving him an opportunity to respond. The Court rejected this argument because there was no evidence in the record confirming such contact or showing what information was allegedly obtained. The applicant’s affidavit alone was insufficient to establish procedural unfairness.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the officer provided detailed reasons, reasonably assessed the evidence, and committed no reviewable error. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

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