Ly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1420 : Marriage Refusal Confirmed Based on Relationship Timeline and Inconsistencies

The Federal Court reviewed Van Vu Ly’s challenge to an Immigration Appeal Division decision upholding his wife’s spousal sponsorship refusal. The IAD found the marriage was not genuine and had been entered into primarily for immigration purposes. The Court upheld the decision.

Key Principle

A marriage can fail the immigration test even if it later becomes genuine. Genuineness is assessed at the time of decision, while primary intent is assessed at the time of marriage. Positive post-marriage evidence, including a common child, does not compel approval where the evidence supports a finding that immigration was the primary purpose at marriage.

Background

The sponsor was introduced to Ms. Do in 2017, proposed by telephone two months later, travelled to Vietnam, and married her in December 2017. The IAD relied on the rapid progression, limited pre-marriage communication evidence, inconsistencies about immigration plans, and contradictory evidence concerning consent documents for her children. It nevertheless acknowledged visits, communication, and the couple’s common child.

Court Findings

• Two Separate Requirements Had to Be Met

The Court confirmed that a marriage must be genuine at the time of decision and must not have been entered into primarily for immigration purposes. A relationship that later becomes genuine may still be disqualified if immigration was the primary purpose when the marriage began.

• Credibility Concerns Were Grounded in the Record

The IAD identified inconsistencies involving the rapid relationship, absence of pre-marriage communication records, the children’s absence from the wedding, the sponsor’s limited knowledge of them, and conflicting evidence about immigration preparations and consent documents. The Court found these were legitimate credibility concerns, not speculation about how genuine couples should behave.

• Court Would Not Reweigh Alternative Explanations

The sponsor argued that Ms. Do could have gathered immigration documents before the wedding without having decided to move to Canada and that the IAD misunderstood the consent documents. The Court held these arguments largely asked it to substitute its own assessment for the IAD’s, which judicial review does not permit.

• Missing Communication Records Could Be Considered

The couple said they communicated through Facebook Messenger before marriage but provided no records. They blamed a changed phone and lost password, but the sponsor did not explain why records could not be obtained from his own account. The IAD therefore had a rational basis for expecting corroboration and drawing an adverse inference.

• Common Child Was Important but Not Determinative

The couple had a child in 2020, which the IAD treated as the strongest positive evidence. The Court accepted that a child may support genuineness, but it does not resolve the separate question of primary purpose at marriage. The IAD reasonably found that this evidence did not outweigh its concerns.

• Later Genuineness Did Not Cure Original Purpose

The IAD accepted that visits, communications, financial support, family integration, and the common child could show the relationship had become genuine. However, those developments did not negate a reasonable finding that immigration was the primary purpose when the marriage was entered into.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review. The IAD’s credibility findings and assessment of genuineness and primary purpose were justified, intelligible, and transparent. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Ly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1420 (CanLII)