Ojeaburu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 357 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Upheld Where IAD Reasonably Assessed Immigration History and Marriage Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed Bamidele Peter Ojeaburu’s challenge to the IAD’s dismissal of his spousal sponsorship appeal. The IAD found he had not established that his marriage was genuine and not entered into primarily for immigration purposes. The Court upheld the decision as reasonable.

Key Principle

An IAD assessing spousal sponsorship may consider prior immigration history, previous marriages, inconsistencies about wedding arrangements, and the quality of relationship evidence. A reviewing court will not reweigh evidence where the IAD independently assesses the record and provides intelligible reasons.

Background

The applicant obtained PR through an earlier spousal sponsorship, separated four months after landing, and later divorced. He married Ms. Eichie in 2016 and sponsored her in 2018. She had overstayed in the UK, twice been refused Canadian study permits, and was convicted in 2013 for using a false passport while attempting to travel to Canada. The visa officer refused sponsorship.

Court Findings

• IAD Independently Assessed the Evidence

The applicant argued that the IAD merely adopted the visa officer’s concerns. The Court disagreed. The IAD identified those concerns and then independently considered the testimony and documentary evidence presented on appeal, which was the proper approach.

• First Marriage Was Relevant to Credibility

Because the applicant obtained Canadian status through his first marriage and separated only months after landing, the IAD could consider that history when assessing credibility. His explanation that the marriage ended because of a dispute over buying a laptop was reasonably viewed as questionable. The IAD also stated that the first marriage was not determinative.

• Spouse’s Immigration History Was Properly Considered

The IAD reasonably considered Ms. Eichie’s overstay in the UK, two failed Canadian study permit applications, and attempt to enter Canada using a false passport. These circumstances could support the view that she had demonstrated a strong determination to reach Canada. The weighing of her later compliant travel was for the IAD.

• Refugee Explanation Did Not Undermine the Finding

Ms. Eichie said the false-passport incident was connected to an intention to claim refugee protection in Canada. The Court found the IAD could remain skeptical because she had not sought asylum while in the UK and later repeatedly returned to Nigeria after international travel. Her interview evidence also confirmed longstanding interest in Canada.

• Traditional Wedding Concerns Were Reasonable

The couple gave inconsistent explanations for not holding a traditional Nigerian ceremony. Ms. Eichie cited financial constraints, while the applicant said he did not like Nigeria. They had also repeatedly stated that a traditional ceremony would occur, yet none had occurred by the IAD hearing. The IAD could reasonably treat these inconsistencies as relevant.

• Relationship Evidence Was Insufficient

The IAD noted little meaningful communication evidence from the early relationship and found later chat records lacked substance. Although post-marriage travel and miscarriage evidence weighed positively, the supporting record remained limited. The applicant bore the burden of proving the relationship, and the Court would not reweigh the IAD’s assessment.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review. The IAD reasonably considered the prior marriage, Ms. Eichie’s immigration history, conflicting wedding explanations, and limited relationship evidence. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Ojeaburu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 357 (CanLII)