Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 609 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Set Aside After Officer Overlooked Key Evidence of Cohabitation

The Federal Court allowed an application for judicial review of the refusal of a permanent residence application under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class. The immigration officer concluded that the applicant had entered into the marriage primarily to obtain immigration status and had failed to establish that he cohabited with his Canadian spouse. While the Court upheld the officer’s assessment regarding the primary purpose of the marriage, it found the decision unreasonable because the officer overlooked objective documentary evidence directly supporting cohabitation. The Court held that where an officer disregards material evidence central to the determination of eligibility without explanation, the resulting decision cannot satisfy the standard of reasonableness.

Key Principle

Although applicants bear the burden of establishing that a marriage is genuine and was not entered into primarily for an immigration advantage, immigration officers must meaningfully consider all material evidence relating to the statutory requirements. Where evidence directly contradicts an officer’s conclusion on a central issue, the officer must explain why that evidence was rejected. A failure to address objective evidence of cohabitation renders a decision unreasonable.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, entered Canada as an international student and later married his Canadian spouse in April 2021. He subsequently applied for permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class. During processing, IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter expressing concerns regarding the genuineness of the relationship and the parties’ level of interdependence. In response, the applicant submitted additional documentation, including tax records, bank statements, cellular telephone bills, photographs, social media evidence, a letter from the sponsor’s mother, and lease agreements. Despite the additional evidence, the officer refused the application, concluding that the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes and that the parties had failed to establish they were cohabiting.

Court Findings

• The Court Will Not Reweigh Evidence Relating to the Primary Purpose of the Marriage

The Court held that the applicant’s submissions concerning the genuineness of the marriage largely invited the Court to reassess the evidence considered by the officer. Questions relating to text messages, social media activity, family relationships, and the overall credibility of the relationship fell within the officer’s role as fact-finder. Since the officer had considered this evidence, the Court declined to interfere with the assessment of whether the marriage was entered into primarily for an immigration purpose.

• Officers Must Address Material Evidence of Cohabitation

The Court found the refusal unreasonable because the officer failed to consider a critical lease agreement signed in April 2021 by the applicant, the sponsor, and the sponsor’s mother. Instead, the officer referred only to a later lease renewal that did not contain the applicant’s signature and concluded that the only objective evidence of cohabitation was a cellular phone bill. The original lease constituted objective evidence directly supporting cohabitation and contradicted the officer’s conclusion. Given its significance, the officer was required either to consider the lease or explain why it was rejected. The complete omission of this evidence undermined the reasonableness of the decision.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review and remitted the matter to a different immigration officer for redetermination. The decision confirms that while courts will generally defer to an officer’s assessment of the genuineness or primary purpose of a marriage, they will intervene where the officer overlooks material objective evidence that is directly relevant to a central statutory requirement such as cohabitation.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Case Citation:
Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 609 (CanLII)