The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s
refusal of Darin Bentan Roberts’ inland spousal sponsorship application. The
applicant had lived in Canada without status since 2007 and sought permanent
residence through sponsorship by his wife, whom he married in 2017. During an
interview, the sponsor stated that she wanted to help him obtain status and
that the only reason he remained with her was because of the permanent
residence application. The Court dismissed judicial review, finding that the
officer reasonably relied on these statements in concluding that the marriage
was not genuine.
Key Principle
Immigration officers are entitled
to significant deference when assessing the genuineness of a marriage under
section 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. An officer may
reasonably place substantial weight on a sponsor’s direct statements that the
applicant is remaining in the relationship only to obtain immigration status.
On judicial review, the Court will not reweigh the evidence merely because
other evidence supports the continuation of the marriage or because the sponsor
later explains that the statements were made while angry.
Background
The applicant, a citizen of St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, met the sponsor in 2012. They married in 2017 and
submitted a sponsorship application in 2019.
In March 2023, the sponsor
contacted IRCC and asked to withdraw the application. When contacted again in
June 2023, she said she no longer wished to withdraw it.
The applicant and sponsor were
later interviewed separately. The sponsor explained that she had wanted to
withdraw because the applicant had been unfaithful. She said she continued with
the application because she wanted to help him obtain his status.
When asked whether the applicant
would remain with her without the permanent residence application, she answered
that he would not and that the application was the only reason he was still
with her.
After judicial review was
commenced, the sponsor filed an affidavit stating that the officer had taken
her comments out of context and that she had made them because she was upset
about the applicant’s infidelity.
Court Findings
• Officer Could Rely on the
Sponsor’s Statements
The sponsor’s comments directly
addressed whether the relationship was genuine and whether immigration status
was the reason for its continuation.
• Statements Were Not Denied
The sponsor did not dispute
making the statements. Her later affidavit merely explained that she had been
angry when she made them.
• Chronology Supported the
Officer’s Assessment
The sponsor first sought
withdrawal, later continued the application, and then explained during the
interview that she was proceeding to help the applicant obtain status. The
officer reasonably considered this sequence.
• Court Could Not Reweigh the
Evidence
Although other evidence showed a
lengthy relationship and consistent interview answers, it was not the Court’s
role to substitute its own assessment for that of the officer.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the
application for judicial review and upheld the refusal of the spousal
sponsorship application. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Roberts v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 364 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
