Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kintuene, 2025 FC 585 : Spousal Sponsorship Decision Set Aside Where IAD Addressed Genuineness but Not Initial Marriage Purpose

The Federal Court allowed the Minister’s application for judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision that had overturned a spousal sponsorship refusal on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. The Court found that the IAD erred by considering only whether the relationship was genuine and failing to separately determine whether the marriage was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status under paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).

Key Principle

Section 4(1) of the IRPR establishes two distinct requirements: the marriage must not have been entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status under paragraph 4(1)(a), and the relationship must be genuine under paragraph 4(1)(b). Both requirements must be separately assessed. A finding that a relationship is genuine does not, by itself, establish that the marriage was not initially entered into for immigration purposes.

Background

The Respondent, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Canadian permanent resident, met her spouse virtually in 2019. They began a long-distance relationship and met in person for the first time in September 2020. They met again in May 2021 and married during that visit. The Respondent subsequently submitted a family class sponsorship application for her spouse.

The sponsorship application was refused after the spouse admitted that two children identified as his biological children were actually his deceased cousin’s children. The immigration officer found him inadmissible for misrepresentation under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The officer did not, however, determine whether the marriage was genuine or whether the spouse was otherwise a member of the family class.

On appeal, the IAD allowed the sponsorship appeal based on H&C considerations. It found that the relationship was genuine and sustained and concluded that sufficient H&C considerations existed to overcome the misrepresentation. The Minister sought judicial review.

Court Findings

• The IAD Failed to Assess Initial Immigration Intent

The Court found that the IAD focused exclusively on the genuineness of the relationship and failed to analyze whether the marriage was entered into primarily to obtain immigration status. The Minister had expressly maintained that the relationship may have been genuine at the time of the hearing but that the initial intention remained primarily immigration-related.

• Genuineness and Immigration Purpose Are Distinct

Even where a marriage later develops into a genuine relationship, this does not eliminate the requirement to determine the parties’ purpose when the marriage was entered into. Post-marriage evidence may be relevant, but the two statutory criteria cannot be combined into a single analysis. Separate conclusions must be reached under paragraphs 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b).

• H&C Relief Depends on Family Class Membership

Under section 65 of the IRPA, the IAD may consider H&C considerations only after determining that the foreign national is a member of the family class. Because the IAD failed to properly determine whether the spouse satisfied paragraph 4(1)(a), its subsequent H&C analysis was legally flawed.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the Minister’s application for judicial review and referred the matter back to the IAD for redetermination before a different member. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kintuene, 2025 FC 585 (CanLII)