Younes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1024 : TRV Refusal Maintained Where Spouse’s PR Status Was Obtained Through Undisclosed Material Facts

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Jouhana Younes’s TRV application and the accompanying five-year misrepresentation finding. The officer concluded that the applicant had been untruthful about why she was not declared in her common-law spouse’s earlier PR application and that this omission was material to the assessment of her TRV application.

Key Principle

An applicant has a duty of candour and may be inadmissible for withholding material facts even where the underlying immigration misconduct involved another person. A misrepresentation is material where the withheld information is important enough to affect how the applicant’s own application is assessed or processed.

Background

The applicant sought a TRV to visit her common-law spouse, a Canadian PR. Her spouse had obtained PR as the accompanying spouse of his former wife despite having divorced her and entered a common-law relationship with the applicant before landing. When questioned, both the applicant and her spouse initially stated that she had not been added because doing so would delay his application.

Court Findings

• Officer Meaningfully Considered the Applicant’s Explanation

The applicant argued that she did not understand the contents of her spouse’s PR application or know that common-law partners had to be declared. The Court found that the GCMS notes expressly considered these explanations and reasonably rejected them in light of the relationship timeline and the couple’s similar responses.

• Common Explanation Was Reasonably Found Not Credible

Both partners said the applicant was omitted because adding her would delay the application, yet the applicant later claimed she did not know she could have been added at all. The Court found the officer could reasonably view these positions as inconsistent and conclude that she knew the real reason for the omission.

• Reliance on Immigration Advisers Did Not Resolve the Concern

The spouse claimed that lawyers and consultants had advised him how to proceed after his divorce. However, no documentary evidence of that advice or professional complaint was provided, and the applicant did not pursue an incompetence allegation. The officer therefore reasonably declined to accept this explanation.

• Withheld Information Was Material to the TRV Application

The applicant’s stated purpose was to visit a PR who had obtained status while still represented as the spouse of his ex-wife. The Court agreed that truthful disclosure could have affected the assessment of both the spouse’s status and the applicant’s purpose of travel, making the omission material.

• Duty of Candour Was Breached

The Court held that the applicant failed to disclose the true reason she had not been declared in the earlier PR process. This untruthfulness breached her statutory duty to answer immigration questions truthfully and was sufficient to support refusal of the TRV.

• Innocent Misrepresentation Exception Did Not Apply

The Court noted that even an innocent omission can constitute misrepresentation, subject to a narrow exception where the applicant honestly and reasonably lacked knowledge of a material fact beyond their control. Given the applicant’s long common-law relationship and admitted knowledge of the prior application and divorce, that exception was unavailable.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, upheld the TRV refusal and misrepresentation finding, made no order as to costs, and certified no question.

Case Citation:

Younes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1024 (CanLII)