Vo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 816 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Upheld Because Evidence Did Not Establish a Genuine Marriage

Outcome: Judicial Review Dismissed

➢ Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed the dismissal of an appeal involving the refusal of a spousal sponsorship application.

The Court upheld the Immigration Appeal Division’s finding that the applicant had not established that his marriage was genuine and was not entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

➢ Key Principle

The onus is on the applicant to establish the genuineness of the marriage.

An applicant is not entitled to procedural fairness simply because the decision-maker did not ask questions about every concern that may ultimately appear in the reasons. Where the applicant has already been informed of the concerns through the visa officer’s notes and has been given an opportunity to address them at the appeal hearing, procedural fairness is generally satisfied.

On judicial review, the Court will not reweigh evidence that was reasonably considered by the IAD.

➢ Background

The applicant had previously been involved in two relationships through which he had attempted to sponsor women for permanent residence. His first sponsorship was withdrawn, and his second marriage ended in divorce shortly after his wife arrived in Canada.

He married his current wife in Vietnam in 2007 and subsequently sponsored her for permanent residence.

The visa officer refused the sponsorship after an interview with the applicant’s wife. The officer identified concerns about the genuineness of the relationship, including her limited knowledge of the applicant’s personal life, generic answers about his qualities and their relationship, and the lack of information about their plans for their future together.

The applicant appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division.

➢ Court Findings

The Federal Court found that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant argued that the IAD had relied on the couple’s lack of evidence about their future plans even though the IAD member had not specifically questioned him about that issue.

The Court rejected this argument. The applicant carried the burden of establishing that the marriage was genuine. The IAD was not required to make the applicant’s case for him through questioning.

More importantly, the visa officer’s CAIPS notes had already identified the concerns about the relationship, including the lack of information about the couple’s future plans. The applicant therefore knew the nature of the concerns and had a fair opportunity to address them during the IAD appeal.

The Court also found that the IAD’s conclusion was reasonable. The IAD considered evidence supporting the genuineness of the marriage, including money transfers and telephone calls, but also considered contrary evidence concerning the couple’s courtship, the rapid proposal, the wife’s limited knowledge of the applicant’s life in Canada, his previous sponsorship history and the lack of evidence regarding their future together.

The Court found that the applicant was essentially asking the Court to reweigh the evidence, which is not the role of the Court on judicial review.

➢ Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the IAD’s finding that the marriage was not established to be genuine and was not entered into for a purpose other than immigration.

Case Citation:

Vo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 816 CanLII