Burton v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 345 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Upheld Because Marriage Was Primarily Entered Into for Immigration Purposes

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision refusing a spousal sponsorship application because the marriage was found to have been entered into primarily for the purpose of obtaining immigration status.

The applicants argued that the IAD had misinterpreted the evidence and applied the wrong version of the applicable regulation. The Court dismissed the application and upheld the IAD’s decision.

Key Principle

Under section 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the genuineness of a marriage and its primary purpose are distinct inquiries.

A marriage may be genuine while still having been entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status. Therefore, a finding that a marriage is genuine does not prevent a decision-maker from finding that its primary purpose was immigration.

The relevant time for assessing primary purpose is when the marriage was entered into, while genuineness is assessed separately.

Background

The applicant, Mr. Griffith, was a citizen of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines who had made a refugee claim in Canada that was refused. He met Ms. Burton in 2003 and they married later that year. Ms. Burton knew about his immigration situation before the marriage.

Despite being married, they did not live together while he was in Canada. Ms. Burton continued living with her parents and did not disclose the marriage to her family. Mr. Griffith was later removed from Canada, after which Ms. Burton submitted a sponsorship application.

The IAD found that immigration was the primary purpose of the marriage. It relied on the applicants’ own evidence, including their admission that they would not have married so soon if Mr. Griffith had not been facing removal, as well as the lack of cohabitation and the circumstances surrounding the marriage.

Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the IAD’s conclusion was reasonable.

The Court held that the IAD had a reasonable evidentiary basis for finding that the marriage was entered into primarily to allow Mr. Griffith to remain in Canada. The applicants’ admissions, Mr. Griffith’s immigration history, the concealment of the marriage from Ms. Burton’s family, and their lack of cohabitation supported the finding.

The Court also confirmed that the IAD was not required to determine whether the marriage was genuine once it had found that the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes. Either ground under section 4(1) could independently dispose of the sponsorship application.

The Court further confirmed that the applicable regulation was the version in force when the decision was made, as the filing of a sponsorship application does not create an accrued right to have the application assessed under the legislation in force when it was filed.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the IAD’s refusal of the spousal sponsorship application.

Case Citation:

Burton v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 345 CanLII