Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 657 : Refusal Upheld Where Interview Inconsistencies and Sponsor’s Prior Marriages Undermined Spousal Sponsorship

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Gurpreet Kaur’s inland spousal permanent residence application. The officer concluded that Ms. Kaur had not established that her marriage to Canadian citizen Surjeet Singh Nahal was genuine and was not entered into primarily for immigration purposes under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR. The Court upheld the decision, finding that the officer reasonably considered inconsistencies from the couple’s interviews, the sponsor’s extensive marital and sponsorship history, and their demeanour.

Key Principle

An officer assessing a marriage under subsection 4(1) of the IRPR may consider the sponsor’s previous marriages, prior spousal sponsorship applications, the circumstances in which those marriages ended, discrepancies between the spouses’ interview answers, and their demeanor. The birth of a child is relevant evidence but does not, by itself, establish that a marriage was genuine when entered into. Judicial review is not an opportunity to provide new explanations for inconsistencies or ask the Court to reweigh the evidence.

Background

Ms. Kaur, an Indian citizen, entered Canada as a temporary foreign worker in 2013. Mr. Nahal, a Canadian citizen, had previously married four Indian nationals and had sponsored or attempted to sponsor each of them. One previous sponsorship had been refused because of marriage-of-convenience concerns.

Ms. Kaur had known Mr. Nahal since 2008 and first met him personally in 2012 while he was still married to his fourth wife. They began cohabiting in January 2014, married in May 2015 after his divorce, and applied for permanent residence the following month. Their daughter was born in November 2016.

At a March 2017 interview, the officer identified numerous discrepancies concerning when the couple met and began cohabiting, their honeymoon and recent vacation, their most recent intimacy, their knowledge of each other’s origins, the sponsor’s work schedule, and their weekend activities.

Court Findings

• Previous Marriages and Sponsorships Were Relevant

The Court held that previous marriages are legitimate considerations when assessing genuineness. It added that officers may reasonably consider the number and nature of previous spousal sponsorship applications and when and why those marriages ended. The officer did not treat Mr. Nahal’s history as determinative but considered it alongside the remaining evidence.

• Interview Inconsistencies and Demeanour Supported the Decision

Ms. Kaur attempted to explain several discrepancies during judicial review, including her uncertainty about the honeymoon destination. The Court found that these submissions effectively sought to modify the record and have the evidence reweighed. The officer was entitled to consider the inconsistencies and the couple’s body language during the interview.

• Child Did Not Automatically Establish a Genuine Marriage

The Court rejected the argument that the officer improperly discounted the couple’s child. Read in context, the officer’s comments reflected the established principle that having a child does not independently prove the bona fides of a marriage at the time it was entered into. All circumstances had to be considered together. The Court also rejected allegations of bad faith, finding no evidence that the officer had predetermined the application.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review. The officer’s assessment of the marriage was reasonable, and the allegations of bad faith were unsupported. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 657 (CanLII)