Case: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kintuene, 2025 FC 585: Federal Court Confirms the IAD Must Separately Assess Genuineness and Primary Purpose of Marriage

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) that allowed a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) appeal and overturned a sponsorship refusal. The IAD found the respondent’s marriage to her sponsored spouse was genuine, but failed to assess whether the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes under paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR). The Court allowed the Minister’s judicial review, finding the IAD’s decision unreasonable due to its failure to address both prongs of the disjunctive test.

Key Principle

Under subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, decision-makers must conduct two separate analyses when assessing a spousal relationship:

• whether the marriage was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status (IRPR, s. 4(1)(a)); and
• whether the relationship is genuine (IRPR, s. 4(1)(b)).

A genuine relationship alone does not establish membership in the family class. Both requirements must be satisfied before the Immigration Appeal Division can exercise its humanitarian and compassionate jurisdiction under section 65 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Background

The respondent sponsored her husband for permanent residence under the family class. The application was refused because the sponsored spouse had misrepresented that two children were his biological children when they were, in fact, his deceased cousin’s children.

The sponsor appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division solely on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. During the appeal, the Minister also argued that the marriage had been entered into primarily for immigration purposes under subsection 4(1)(a) of the IRPR. Although the IAD found that the relationship was genuine and granted H&C relief, it failed to determine whether the marriage’s primary purpose at the time it was entered into was to obtain immigration status.

Court Findings

• The Two Branches of IRPR Section 4(1) Must Be Analyzed Separately

The Court reaffirmed that subsection 4(1) establishes a disjunctive test. Decision-makers must independently determine both whether the relationship is genuine and whether the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes. A finding on one branch does not eliminate the need to analyze the other.

• A Genuine Relationship Does Not Cure an Initially Non-Genuine Immigration Purpose

The Court emphasized that even where a marriage later develops into a genuine and loving relationship, the applicant remains excluded from the family class if the marriage was originally entered into primarily to obtain immigration status. Subsequent genuineness cannot overcome an improper initial purpose under subsection 4(1)(a).

• Failure to Address a Central Legal Issue Makes a Decision Unreasonable

The Court found that the IAD misunderstood the Minister’s submissions by treating the concession that the relationship was genuine as a concession that the marriage had not been entered into for immigration purposes. Because the IAD failed to address one of the central legal issues raised before it, its decision lacked justification and failed to comply with the principles established in Vavilov.

• Family Class Membership Must Be Established Before H&C Relief Can Be Considered

Section 65 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act only permits the Immigration Appeal Division to consider humanitarian and compassionate factors after determining that the applicant is a member of the family class. Since the IAD failed to properly determine family class membership under subsection 4(1), it had no proper basis to exercise its H&C jurisdiction.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the Minister’s application for judicial review, set aside the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision, and returned the matter to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.

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