Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1077 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Upheld Because Primary Purpose Was Immigration, Despite Genuine Marriage Finding

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Appeal Division decision dismissing a spousal

sponsorship appeal under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR. The Court found that the IAD reasonably concluded that the applicant’s wife had entered the marriage primarily to obtain immigration status, although the IAD’s separate finding that the marriage was not genuine was unreasonable. Because the Regulations are disjunctive, the finding

on primary purpose was sufficient to uphold the refusal.

Key Principle

Under the current wording of subsection 4(1) of the IRPR, the genuineness and primary-

purpose requirements are separate and disjunctive. The relevant time for assessing:

• Primary purpose: the parties’ intention at the time the marriage was entered into.

• Genuineness: whether the marriage is genuine at the time of the assessment.

A marriage can therefore be genuine at the time of the hearing while still being excluded if it was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status.

The IAD must assess the two requirements separately and cannot weigh genuineness against primary purpose as though one factor could overcome the other.

Background

The applicant was a Canadian citizen originally from Guyana. His cousin introduced him to his wife, who was also from Guyana and had a son. The couple began speaking by telephone in June 2008, met in person for the first time on July 30, 2008, and married in Guyana seven days later. The applicant submitted a sponsorship application in January 2010. The visa officer refused the application, finding that the applicant’s wife had entered the marriage primarily to obtain status in Canada and that the marriage was not genuine.

The IAD dismissed the appeal. The IAD relied on factors including the short period between the couple’s first meeting and

marriage, the wife’s limited reservations about the proposed marriage, the applicant’s Canadian status and the wife’s desire to provide her son with a better future.

Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the IAD’s finding concerning primary purpose was reasonable.

The evidence showed that the couple agreed to marry very quickly, after only a short telephone conversation and one in-person meeting. The applicant was the only marriage candidate presented to his wife, and the IAD reasonably found that his Canadian status played a role in her decision. The Court therefore found that the IAD was entitled to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the wife entered the marriage primarily for the purpose of immigrating to Canada with her son. The Court nevertheless found that the IAD’s separate finding that the marriage was not genuine was unreasonable.

Most of the factors relied upon by the IAD actually supported or were neutral regarding

genuineness. The applicant provided financial support, maintained regular communication with his wife and made repeated visits to Guyana. The IAD’s concern about the applicant’s relationship with his stepson was based largely on a minor issue involving a nickname. The Court found that it was unreasonable to conclude that the marriage was not genuine based on such a limited concern. More importantly, the IAD improperly asked whether evidence of the subsequent development of the relationship was sufficient to “outweigh” the original primary purpose of the marriage. That was legally incorrect.

The two tests operate independently. Evidence that a marriage is genuine cannot simply be weighed against a finding that it was originally entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review because the reasonable finding on primary purpose was sufficient to uphold the refusal. The Court also certified a question concerning whether the disjunctive wording of subsection 4(1) of the IRPR was ultra vires the IRPA’s family reunification objective in paragraph 3(1)(d).

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1077 CanLII