JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] Mr. Muneer Alam [the Applicant] is a Canadian citizen who applied to sponsor Mrs. Sana Muneer, his new Pakistani wife. Having accepted the Applicant’s testimony that the marriage has been arranged by the couple’s parents, the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal as it found there was insufficient evidence explaining why the couple was considered a “good match”.

I. Background

[2] The Applicant is a 35-year-old Pakistani national, who received his Canadian permanent residence through a marriage to a member of his extended family. After his divorce, the Applicant did not want to remarry as he was heartbroken.

[3] However, the Applicant remarried in March 2022, to a 22-year-old Pakistani national (18 at the time of marriage), after having been convinced to do so by the couple’s families. The Applicant acknowledges that the marriage was arranged, but he states that this idea is very well known and accepted in his country.

[4] The IAD dismissed the Applicant’s appeal because it concluded that the marriage was not a genuine one, and that it was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001 c 27 [IRPA]. As an arranged marriage, there was insufficient evidence explaining why the couple was considered compatible, their fundamental knowledge of each other was limited — with significant discrepancies noted, while evidence of reasonable future planning was absent.

II. Issues

[5] Although the Applicant submits a series of issues that call into question potential bias held by the IAD member, the right to marry a person of one’s choice, and certain fundamental freedoms, I am of the view that the only issue raised by this application for judicial review is whether the IAD decision is reasonable as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

[6] The Court’s role is therefore to examine the decision and determine whether it “… is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 85). In conducting a reasonableness analysis, the Court must respect the role of the IAD as decision-maker in this regard, as it has specialized expertise, while the burden to convince the Court that the decision is unreasonable is that of the Applicant (Vavilov at para 100).

III. Analysis

[7] According to the Applicant, the IAD had no reason to doubt that he was in a real-marital relationship with his wife. He submits that the “right to the respect of family life is considered to be a fundamental right in international law” and is “one of the fundamental bases for our Immigration Act…”.

[8] The Applicant also asserts that his right to equality under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11  is violated by the decision for both him and his wife.

[9] Given that the marriage is legal in Canada, the Applicant argues that the IAD’s discretion should have been exercised in favour of the couple.

[10] With respect, I disagree with the Applicant.

[11] It was for the IAD (and for the visa officer before) to assess whether the Applicant’s marriage was genuine and not entered for the purpose of acquiring a status under the IRPA (subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227).

[12] The IAD found that there was little evidence of the Applicant’s relationship and that there were discrepancies between the sponsorship application and the Applicant’s testimony.

[13] In his application, the Applicant indicated that after his divorce he went back to Pakistan because he was heartbroken, and that he was upset because his family had found a potential new wife unbeknownst to him. However, the Applicant testified in front of the IAD that he went back to Pakistan to remarry, after having asked his mother to find a suitable spouse for him.

[14] There were also inconsistencies and contradictions between the Applicant and his wife’s testimonies.

[15] The Applicant first testified that his family and his wife’s family first met at the end of January 2022 but later said that he did not know when the meeting took place.

[16] The Applicant and his wife could not explain what led their respective family to suggest that they would be compatible. The discussions that led to the proposed marriage remained vague and unclear, as no evidence on the part of the people who were part of those discussions was offered. The Applicant and his wife could not either explain why they were compatible.

[17] Beside knowing that their partner liked to watch TV, they had very little knowledge of each other, even after a few years into the marriage.

[18] Finally, they had made no specific plans for their future.

[19] The determination of whether a marriage is genuine is essentially a fact-based inquiry (Rosa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 117 at para 23; Dewan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2024 FC 375 at para 41). While it is one thing to accept that arranged marriages are performed in the Applicant’s country and culture, they still need to be based on something. In other words, if not based on love, the marriage must be based on some rationale or benefit.

[20] In this context, I believe it was reasonable for the IAD to look for this rationale and, faced with the above discrepancies and lack of evidence, the IAD could reasonably find that the Applicant’s credibility was undermined and, consequently, have concerns about the purpose of the marriage.

[21] The IAD recognized arranged marriages can be valid, it is considered and weighed all the evidence, and its reasons are transparent, intelligible and justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision (Vavilov at para 99).

IV. Conclusion

[22] The Applicant has not convinced me that the IAD erred in the assessment of the genuineness and purpose of his marriage justifying the intervention of the Court.

[23] The parties have proposed no question of general importance for certification, and I am of the view that no such question arises from the fact of this case.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-19718-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that :

1. The Application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No question of general importance is certified.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES :

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: