The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a family class spousal
sponsorship application involving a Vietnamese applicant sponsored by her
Canadian spouse. The visa officer concluded that the marriage was not genuine,
characterizing the evidence of cohabitation and the relationship as
“limited” and “sparse.” The Court granted judicial review,
finding that the officer fundamentally misapprehended the evidence and failed
to provide transparent reasons explaining why the relationship evidence was
insufficient.
Key Principle
Visa officers must meaningfully assess all relationship evidence and
provide transparent reasons when rejecting the genuineness of a spousal
relationship. An officer cannot dismiss substantial evidence of cohabitation
and a genuine relationship with conclusory statements that are unsupported by
the record.
The applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, married her Canadian spouse after
meeting while studying in Canada. In response to a procedural fairness letter
questioning the genuineness of the relationship, the applicant submitted
extensive documentation, including;
- Ontario driver’s licences of the Applicant and her spouse which reflect their joint address;
- The couple’s joint bank account statement which identifies their joint address;
- An Ontario marriage certificate reflecting their joint address;
- The Applicant’s husband’s Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment which reflects their joint address;
- Communication to the Applicant from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada sent to the couple’s joint address;
- The couple’s immigration forms signed under declarations of truthfulness in which they identify their joint address.
- relationship photographs, a detailed relationship timeline, and evidence of joint travel.
Despite these evidence, the application was refused on the basis that
proof of cohabitation and relationship evidence was insufficient.
Court Findings
- Officer Misapprehended the Evidence of Cohabitation
The Court held that the officer unreasonably
characterized the applicant’s evidence of cohabitation as “limited”
despite multiple independent documents demonstrating that the spouses shared
the same residential address. While the weight assigned to evidence falls
within the officer’s discretion, the officer’s description of the evidence was
inconsistent with the record.
- Reasons Lacked Transparency
The officer also relied on the applicant’s length of
stay in Canada, the duration of the relationship, and the applicant’s original
purpose for entering Canada as reasons to doubt the marriage. The Court found
these factors were merely listed without explaining how they undermined the
genuineness of the relationship. Such conclusory reasoning failed to satisfy
the requirements of transparency and intelligibility established in Vavilov.
- Relationship Evidence Was Improperly Dismissed
The applicant submitted photographs spanning the
relationship, wedding photographs, a detailed relationship timeline, and
evidence of joint travel. The officer’s characterization of this evidence as
“sparse” was unsupported by any meaningful explanation. The Court
further noted that while cohabitation is a defining element of common-law
relationships, a married couple’s relationship must be assessed flexibly based
on the totality of the evidence rather than an unexplained demand for
additional proof of cohabitation.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside
the refusal of the spousal sponsorship application, and returned the matter to
a different officer for redetermination.
Case Citation
Case Citation: Phan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 860 (CanLII)
