Mahabir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 546 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Overturned Because IAD Focused on the Families’ Immigration Motives Instead of the Couple’s Intentions

The Federal Court reviewed a spousal sponsorship refusal involving a Canadian citizen and her husband from Trinidad and Tobago.

The Immigration Appeal Division accepted that their marriage was genuine, but nevertheless concluded that it had been entered into primarily for immigration purposes. In reaching that conclusion, the IAD relied heavily on the intentions and immigration history of the couple’s families.

The Federal Court overturned the decision because the relevant question was primarily why the spouses themselves entered the marriage, not what their parents may have wanted.

Key Principle

When assessing whether a marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes, the focus must be on the intentions of the two people who entered the marriage at the time they married.

The immigration objectives or wishes of parents and other family members may form part of the surrounding circumstances, but those intentions cannot simply be attributed to the spouses.

A genuine marriage can still be refused if its primary purpose was immigration. However, there must be reasonable evidence connecting that immigration purpose to the spouses themselves.

Background

The sponsor was a Canadian citizen. Both she and her husband were described by the Court as cognitively impaired.

Her husband had previously lived in Canada, overstayed his visitor status, made an unsuccessful refugee claim, failed to attend a pre-removal interview, and was eventually deported in March 2009.

The couple married in Trinidad and Tobago in May 2010, approximately 14 months after his deportation.

A spousal sponsorship application was subsequently refused, and the sponsor appealed to the IAD.

The IAD accepted that the marriage was genuine. However, it concluded that the marriage had been entered into primarily for immigration purposes and suggested that the arrangement had been coordinated by the couple’s parents.

The IAD relied on factors including the husband’s previous immigration history, the timing of the marriage, his family connections in Canada, and information concerning the involvement of both families.

Court Findings

The Federal Court emphasized that the Regulations contain two separate grounds for excluding a relationship from spousal sponsorship.

A marriage may be excluded if it is not genuine, or if it was entered into primarily for the purpose of obtaining immigration status or privilege.

Therefore, proving that a marriage is genuine does not automatically end the analysis.

However, when determining the primary purpose of the marriage, the focus must be on the intentions of the spouses.

The Court relied on earlier decisions confirming that the wishes of parents or other relatives are not necessarily the same as the motivations of the people who actually married.

Family members may want a person to immigrate to Canada, but that does not establish that immigration was the spouses’ primary reason for marrying.

The IAD’s reliance on the families’ intentions appeared to be influenced partly by the cognitive impairments of both spouses.

However, the IAD had not found either spouse incapable of forming the intention to marry, and both had been accepted as competent witnesses.

The Federal Court therefore found it unreasonable to substitute the parents’ perceived intentions for those of the spouses themselves.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review.

The sponsorship appeal was returned to a differently constituted panel of the IAD for a new determination.

Case Citation:

Mahabir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 546 CanLII