Docket:
IMM-10549-12
Citation: 2014 FC 211
Ottawa, Ontario, March 4,
2014
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
WEHERAGODAGE DIMUTHU
GOPIKA PERERA
(A.K.A. W. DIMUTH GOPIKA PERERA)
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Reasons delivered orally from the
bench November 21, 2013)
[1]
In a letter dated August 15, 2012 a visa officer
(the Officer) refused the Applicant’s application for permanent residence as a
member of the dependant of the refugee class on the basis that his marriage in Canada to a successful refugee claimant was not genuine and was entered into primarily for
immigration purposes.
[2]
The issues will be set out and discussed below:
Issue 1
[3]
The first issue is whether the Decision is
unreasonable because it is alleged that the Officer ignored relevant evidence.
The Officer focused on the fact that the couple began a relationship in early
2009 and married one month after the Applicant was told he was to be deported.
The Applicant was advised of his requirement to leave on December 7, 2009. At
that time he also received negative decisions on his outstanding H&C and
PRRA applications. He married the Applicant on January 31, 2010.
[4]
In focusing on these dates the Officer was able
to conclude that the couple’s relationship was relatively short lived and that
the marriage only occurred in response to the Applicant’s pending departure.
[5]
However, the Officer failed to mention that, in
June 2007, the Applicant’s wife arrived in Canada, needed a place to live and
heard that the Applicant was looking for a roommate. In July 2007 the Applicant
and his wife began to share accommodation but just as roommates. The
Applicant’s wife made her refugee claim in August 2007. Early in 2008 the
Applicant and his wife began to have romantic feelings for each other but they
remained roommates and did not act on their feelings. In February 2009 the
Applicant asked his wife to start a romantic relationship and she agreed, but
it was not until August 2009 that the Applicant and his wife started to have a
physical relationship. In September 2009 they told their parents about their
relationship.
[6]
On November 20, 2009 the Applicant and his wife
applied for a marriage license. It is noteworthy that the decision to marry was
made after the wife was granted refugee status and before the Applicant learned
of his departure.
[7]
The Applicant was given a deferral of removal to
give him time to marry, and he cooperated with his deportation to Sri Lanka where he now resides. The couple has remained in communication and remain
married.
[8]
In my view, it was unreasonable for the Officer
to fail to address the evidence which showed that the couple had a long
standing relationship.
Issue 2
[9]
The second issue concerns the genuineness of the
marriage and the Officer’s implausibility findings. The Officer did not accept
the marriage because of an inconsistency she perceived in the evidence. On the
one hand the Applicant stated that the couple ignored their cultural values
when they entered into a sexual relationship before marriage, but on the other
hand they followed tradition and asked their parents to choose their wedding
date (the Inconsistency). This led the Officer to conclude that the marriage
was not genuine. However, the Inconsistency was explained. The Applicant stated
that they did not totally abandon their norms. Even after they became
romantically involved they waited 6 months before beginning intimate relations
because of their backgrounds. The Applicant testified that they could not help
themselves.
[10]
In my view this couple’s behaviour does not
demonstrate that their marriage is not bona fide. Rather it shows young
people moving from roommates to friends to romance over a reasonable period.
They are far from home and although responsive to their upbringing they were
influenced by their Western surroundings and their proximity to one another.
[11]
The evidence shows that the couple is proud of
their relationship, told their families immediately, engaged them in their
wedding plans, and asked them to set the wedding date in a traditional manner.
In my view in all these circumstances it was not within the range of reasonable
outcomes, to conclude based on the Inconsistency, that the Applicant’s marriage
is not genuine.
Certification
[12]
There is no question for certification.
Email this Content