Thalisetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 332 : Family-Class Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Explain Finding of Common-Law Relationship Before Sponsor’s Landing

In Thalisetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 332, the Federal Court allowed judicial review of a refusal of permanent residence under the family class. The Officer concluded that the Applicant was excluded under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) because his wife had failed to declare him as a common-law partner when she became a permanent resident. The Court found that the Officer failed to provide a coherent analysis supporting the conclusion that the couple had been in a conjugal relationship since 2018 and failed to address significant evidence pointing to the contrary.

Background

The Applicant and his Sponsor had known each other since high school and lived together in the United States with two roommates from July 2018 to July 2019. They maintained that they were merely roommates during this period, had separate bedrooms, shared household expenses with the other roommates, did not present themselves socially as a couple, and did not have a sexual relationship. Their separate U.S. tax returns also reflected their status as single.

The couple stated that their romantic relationship began in October 2019, followed by an engagement in February 2020. They subsequently married in December 2020. Their evidence also explained that an earlier sponsorship application contained an error by their immigration consultant concerning their period of cohabitation. They disclosed that application and explained the error in their subsequent application.

Key Principle

For the purposes of determining whether an applicant was an undeclared family member under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR, the Officer must properly determine whether the parties were in a conjugal relationship for at least one year at the relevant time.

The Supreme Court’s framework in M v H requires consideration of characteristics such as shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support, children, and societal perception. These factors may exist in varying degrees, and not every factor is necessary.

Court Findings

• The Officer Failed to Explain the Finding of a Conjugal Relationship

The Officer relied on photographs, chat messages and a rental agreement to conclude that the couple had been in an ongoing relationship since 2018. However, the Court found no explanation as to how this evidence demonstrated a conjugal relationship as of 2018. The photographs were largely from the engagement and wedding in 2020, the alleged chat messages were not actually present, and the rental agreement was signed only by the Sponsor.

• Significant Contradictory Evidence Was Ignored

Importantly, the Officer failed to address evidence that contradicted the finding of a conjugal relationship. The parties had separate bedrooms, did not commingle finances, reported themselves as single on their U.S. tax returns, did not have a sexual relationship, held themselves out socially as single, and shared living expenses with their roommates. The Court held that the Officer was required to consider this evidence and explain why it nevertheless concluded that a conjugal relationship existed.

• The H&C Analysis Was a Bald Conclusion

The Court separately found the Officer’s refusal to grant humanitarian and compassionate relief under subsection 25(1) of the IRPA unreasonable. The Officer provided no justification whatsoever for concluding that there were insufficient H&C considerations. A bare conclusion did not satisfy the justification required by Vavilov.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the Officer’s decision, and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination. No question for certification was raised or certified.

Case Citation:

Thalisetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 332 (CanLII)