Igiewe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 101 : Refusal Upheld Where Husband’s Previous Marriage of Convenience and Credibility Problems Undermined Spousal Sponsorship

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Appeal Division decision dismissing Tessy Igiewe’s appeal from the refusal of her application to sponsor her husband, Andre Palmer, for permanent residence. The IAD found that the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes and was not genuine from Mr. Palmer’s perspective. Despite evidence of a lengthy relationship, financial support and a child, the Court held that the IAD reasonably relied on Mr. Palmer’s previous marriage of convenience, immigration history, inconsistent testimony, and credibility problems.

Key Principle

In a spousal sponsorship case, evidence that a relationship appears genuine from the sponsor’s perspective does not require a finding that the marriage satisfies the IRPR. The decision-maker may assess the intentions of the sponsored spouse separately and may give substantial weight to previous marriages of convenience, false immigration declarations, contradictory testimony, and attempts to obtain immigration status. A child of the relationship is important evidence, but it is not automatically determinative of genuineness.

Background

Ms. Igiewe met Mr. Palmer in Jamaica in 2008 and later cohabited with him for approximately four months. She visited Jamaica several times and financially supported him over the years. They married in 2013 and submitted a spousal sponsorship application in 2015. A child was born in December 2016, with Mr. Palmer identified as the father.

However, Mr. Palmer had previously married an American citizen in 2007 and sought sponsorship to the United States. American immigration authorities concluded that the marriage was entered into for immigration purposes. That sponsorship failed and the marriage ended in divorce.

Mr. Palmer also failed to disclose the American immigration refusal when applying to Canada. The visa officer refused the Canadian sponsorship, and the IAD subsequently dismissed Ms. Igiewe’s appeal after finding significant credibility problems.

Court Findings

• Previous Immigration Conduct Supported the IAD’s Concerns

The Court held that the IAD could reasonably consider Mr. Palmer’s previous marriage of convenience and his explanation that he had used his American wife in an effort to get closer to Ms. Igiewe through the United States. His failure to disclose the American refusal on his Canadian application further supported the inference that obtaining immigration status was an important objective.

• Credibility Findings Were Entitled to Deference

The IAD identified contradictions between Mr. Palmer’s visa interview and his appeal testimony, including changes concerning his previous marriage, expressions of remorse, and his proposed living arrangements in Canada. Even if one issue concerning where he intended to live had been misunderstood, the remaining contradictory and inaccurate evidence reasonably supported the adverse credibility finding. The Federal Court would not reweigh that evidence.

• Child and Supporting Evidence Were Not Determinative

The IAD considered testimony from Ms. Igiewe’s friend and letters from family and friends but assigned them limited weight because those individuals did not know the full extent of Mr. Palmer’s immigration history. The birth of the couple’s child also did not establish genuineness by itself. Given the substantial credibility concerns, the IAD reasonably concluded that this evidence did not overcome concerns regarding Mr. Palmer’s intentions.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. It found the IAD’s decision transparent, intelligible, justified, and reasonably supported by the record. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Igiewe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 101 (CanLII)