Last Updated on January 22, 2019

IMM-2620-09

2009 FC 1131

November 5, 2009

Principle Established: Information from personal interviews are as important as documentary evidence

The Applicant is a citizen of India who came to Canada in 2000 on a work permit. His work permit extension was refused and he continued working illegally in Canada for 7 years. In December 2008 an exclusion order was issued against him.

In 2006 the Applicant met Ms. Nawabi and got married in November 2008. He applied for sponsorship, but his application was refused on the basis that his marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily acquiring PR status in Canada.

The first issue raised was whether the immigration officer erred in concluding that the marriage was not genuine by failing to have regard to the documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant.

The Judge indicated that the immigration officer had to consider the totality of all the evidence before her. There were over 17 areas where the couple’s answers differed while the officer interviewed the Applicant and Ms. Nawabi. Even if every piece of documentary evidence was acceptable, the officer was still not persuaded that there was a loving intimate relationship – in other words, a genuine marriage. The Judge ruled that the evidence proffered by the Applicant did not outweigh the evidence obtained through the personal interviews.

The second issue raised by the Applicant was that the Officer did not provide sufficient reasons why she found that the marriage was entered into primarily for acquiring PR status.

The Judge explained that the Applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that his marriage was not entered into primarily for acquiring PR status in Canada. The fact that the Applicant was married shortly after he was reported to immigration officials and that he had a seven-year history of not complying with immigration regulations were evidence that played against him.

The Applicant was engaged to Ms. Nawab for five months, but could only produce photos from three occasions, even though he claimed to have been in a relationship for three years.

The Judge opined that the lack of genuineness presented strong evidence that the marriage was entered into for the purpose of gaining PR status.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

PR: Permanent Resident