Simei Chen sought judicial review
of an officer’s refusal of her inland spousal permanent residence application.
The officer found that her marriage to her Canadian husband was not genuine
under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR. Although Chen argued that the officer
isolated discrepancies and failed to properly weigh positive evidence, the
Federal Court upheld the non-genuineness finding as reasonable.
Key Principle
A spousal sponsorship decision
may reasonably rest on significant inconsistencies concerning basic aspects of
a couple’s family and shared life. An officer is not required to discuss every
piece of documentary evidence where the reasons demonstrate that the evidence
was reviewed and weighed. On judicial review, the Court will not reweigh
competing evidence merely because another conclusion could have been reached.
Background
Chen, a Chinese citizen, met her
Canadian husband in China in January 2008 and married him four days later. Two
earlier overseas family class applications were unsuccessful. The first refusal
was upheld by the Immigration Appeal Division in 2011, which questioned the
marriage’s genuineness. A second application was refused in 2013, and the
sponsor later withdrew his IAD appeal.
Chen entered Canada without
authorization in September 2015. In July 2016, she applied for permanent
residence under the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class. Following a
two-hour interview, the officer identified six discrepancies involving family,
education, meals, restaurant outings, waking time and sexual relations. The
officer concluded that these concerns outweighed the positive evidence.
Court Findings
• Significant Relationship
Inconsistencies Were Reasonably Considered
The Court agreed that the
discrepancy about the couple’s waking time was trivial, but found other
contradictions meaningful. In particular, Chen said she had three grandchildren
while her husband described four. Their answers also differed regarding Chen’s
education, their last restaurant outing, what they ate before the interview and
aspects of their sexual relationship. These matters reasonably raised concerns
about their knowledge of each other.
• Officer Did Not Ignore the
Positive Evidence
The Court rejected the argument
that the officer considered inconsistencies in isolation. The reasons
acknowledged that the couple spent time together, communicated regularly and
had maintained contact for a lengthy period. The officer also referred to photographs
and travel evidence as positive factors. This demonstrated that the decision
involved a balancing of favourable and unfavourable evidence rather than
reliance only on discrepancies.
• Reasons Did Not Need to
Discuss Every Document
Chen emphasized a life insurance
beneficiary designation and a landlord’s letter. The Court held that a
decision-maker is presumed to have considered the evidence and need not address
every document. Neither document indisputably established a genuine marriage.
The officer listed the materials, stated they had been reviewed and referred to
documentary details elsewhere in the reasons. Chen’s challenge invited the
Court to reweigh evidence, which is not its role on judicial review.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the
judicial review application. Because the finding that the marriage was not
genuine was reasonable, the Court did not need to decide Chen’s separate
challenge to the officer’s finding about the marriage’s primary purpose. No
question of general importance was certified.
Case
Citation:
Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 840 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
