Basanti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1068 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Upheld Despite 20-Year Relationship Where Evidence Did Not Overcome Finding That Immigration Was the Marriage’s Primary Purpose

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Appeal Division decision concerning a spousal sponsorship application arising from a marriage that had existed for approximately 20 years.

Despite evidence of continued contact, financial support, visits to India, and fertility treatment, the IAD found that the marriage had originally been entered into primarily to obtain Canadian immigration status.

The Court upheld that determination, emphasizing that evidence showing a long-term or currently genuine relationship does not necessarily establish that immigration was not the primary purpose of the marriage when it was entered into.

Key Principle

Under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR, primary purpose and genuineness are separate, disjunctive tests.

The primary purpose analysis focuses on the spouses’ intentions at the time of marriage, while genuineness concerns the relationship at the time of the decision.

Evidence that a relationship has continued for many years may be relevant to determining its original purpose, but it does not automatically overcome an earlier finding that the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

Background

The Canadian sponsor married his spouse in India in February 1999 following an arranged marriage. The couple had met only shortly before their families agreed to the marriage.

Over approximately 20 years, the sponsor unsuccessfully filed five spousal sponsorship applications.

In the first appeal, counsel had conceded that the marriage was primarily entered into to facilitate the spouse’s admission to Canada. Subsequent IAD proceedings also produced adverse credibility findings concerning the original purpose of the marriage.

In the fifth sponsorship appeal, the IAD considered those earlier decisions together with new evidence of the ongoing relationship, including financial support, visits to India, continued communication, and fertility treatment.

Court Findings

The Court held that the IAD was entitled to consider the previous IAD decisions.

Although those decisions were not binding in the new de novo appeal, they contained detailed assessments of testimony and evidence given much closer in time to the marriage and were therefore highly relevant to determining the parties’ intentions when they married.

The Court also rejected the argument that the long duration of the marriage necessarily displaced the previous primary-purpose findings.

Evidence of continuing contact, financial support, visits, and fertility treatment demonstrated an ongoing relationship, but it did not necessarily establish what motivated the parties at the time the marriage was entered into.

For such later evidence to be decisive, it would have to meaningfully affect the assessment of the spouses’ original intentions. The IAD reasonably concluded that the new evidence did not do so.

The Court further confirmed that once the IAD found that the marriage failed the primary-purpose test under paragraph 4(1)(a), it was unnecessary to determine separately whether the marriage was currently genuine under paragraph 4(1)(b).

Failure on either branch was sufficient to exclude the spouse from the family class.

The Court also found the IAD’s reasons sufficient. Reasons need not be lengthy or perfect so long as they allow the parties and reviewing court to understand why the decision was made.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the IAD reasonably concluded that the primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain immigration status despite the couple’s long-term continuing relationship.

Case Citation:

Basanti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1068 CanLII