Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2001 : Spousal Sponsorship Decision Set Aside After Officer Relied Mainly on Cohabitation Evidence

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of inland spousal sponsorship application. The officer found that the applicant had been the sponsor’s common-law partner when she obtained permanent residence and was therefore an excluded family member under paragraph 125(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations because he had not been declared or examined. The Court granted judicial review because the officer relied almost entirely on the couple’s shared residence and failed to meaningfully assess whether they were actually living in a conjugal relationship.

Key Principle

Living together for one year does not, by itself, establish a common-law relationship. The regulatory definition requires both continuous cohabitation and a conjugal relationship. In determining whether a relationship is conjugal, an officer must conduct a purposive and contextual assessment of factors such as shared shelter, personal and sexual behavior, services, social activities, financial interdependence, children, commitment, and how the couple is perceived by family and society. An officer cannot simply list these factors without analyzing the evidence or explaining how they support the conclusion.

Background

The applicant and sponsor married in June 2022 and later applied under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada class.

IRCC noted that they had lived together in Canada since December 2020 and concluded that they became common-law partners in December 2021. Because the sponsor had declared herself single when she obtained permanent residence, the officer found that the applicant was an undeclared and unexamined family member.

In response to a procedural fairness letter, the couple argued that they had shared accommodation but were not in a committed, marriage-like relationship before marrying.

They submitted that they did not share finances or financially support one another, were not viewed as spouses by their families or community, had no children, and did not consider themselves permanently committed before marriage.

Court Findings

• Shared Residence Was Treated as Determinative

The officer focused almost exclusively on periods of cohabitation in China and Canada without meaningfully determining when a conjugal relationship began.

• Conjugal Factors Were Listed but Not Analyzed

The officer referred generally to sleeping arrangements, personal behavior, shared services, social activities, economic support, and social perception but did not identify the evidence supporting those findings.

• Contrary Evidence Was Not Addressed

The reasons did not engage with the couple’s evidence that they had not combined finances, supported one another, presented themselves publicly as spouses, or formed a permanent spousal commitment before marriage.

• Housing Evidence Was Mischaracterized

The home was purchased solely in the sponsor’s name, and the joint lease did not take effect until January 2022. The officer failed to address these limitations.

• IMM 5532 Wording Could Create Confusion

The Court observed that the form separately asks when the couple began living together and when cohabitation in a conjugal relationship began. This distinction may confuse applicants who do not appreciate that physical cohabitation alone is not enough.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the refusal, and returned the application to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2001 (CanLII)