Docket: IMM-7710-13
Citation:
2015 FC 550
Ottawa, Ontario, April 28, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CHAN YIU-CHUNG
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered Orally from the Bench in
Toronto, Ontario on March 26, 2015)
[1]
Chan Yiu-Chung [the Applicant] has applied for
judicial review of a Decision of the Immigration Appeal Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board [the IAD] dated November 13, 2013 wherein the IAD
dismissed his appeal and confirmed an Immigration Officer’s decision of April
8, 2011, not to issue a permanent residence visa to the Applicant’s wife on the
basis that the marriage is not genuine, and was entered into primarily for the
purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the IRPA]. The application is made pursuant
to subsection 72(1) of the IRPA.
[2]
The Applicant is a 56 year-old Canadian
citizen. He was born in Hong Kong, became a permanent residence of Canada in
1979, and obtained his citizenship in 1985. He married his first wife in 1980
and they had three children. They divorced in 2005. The Applicant currently
works as a caretaker at his sister’s home near Toronto.
[3]
The Applicant’s wife is a 47 year-old citizen of
China.
[4]
In February 2009, the Applicant joined
China Love, an internet dating site, where he noticed his wife’s profile. He
added her to his list of “favourites” and subsequently received a message
asking him to chat. The two began corresponding by e-mails sent through the
dating site. In June 2009, they exchanged phone numbers and began talking on
the phone and through Skype.
[5]
The Applicant proposed to his wife over Skype on
September 20, 2009. He explained that he proposed because he had been
alone for many years.
[6]
In October 2009, the Applicant travelled to China. He and his wife were married on October 9, 2009, and he stayed in China
until October 14, 2009. Since then, he has visited his wife once a year
for approximately two weeks per year. His evidence is that he is not able to
go back to China more often because his sister is his boss, and he is needed to
take care of her home and property.
[7]
During his visits to China, the Applicant has
met various members of his wife’s family including her mother, sister, brother,
sister-in-law and cousin. His wife has also met two of his brothers, as well
as his friend who lives in China. The Applicant submitted copies of his phone
bills from August 2009 – July 2013, which show regular calls between the
Applicant and his wife.
[8]
Two years after the marriage, the Applicant began
to send his wife approximately $500.00 per month.
[9]
On November 18, 2009, the Applicant’s wife
applied for permanent residence as a member of the family class and on April 9,
2011, the application was refused. The husband appealed to the IAD and both
the Applicant and wife testified at a hearing in Toronto on November, 2013.
The wife’s testimony was received by teleconference.
I.
The IAD Decision
[10]
The IAD found that there were a number of
significant inconsistencies in their evidence, which cumulatively raised a
serious doubt about the genuineness of the marriage, especially in light of the
fact that the couple had spent such limited time together. The IAD concluded
that the husband had not met his onus to demonstrate a genuine marriage. The
IAD said “the panel finds that the evidence does not
demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that there is a shared relationship
of some permanence, that there is interdependence between the husband and wife,
that there are shared responsibilities or that there is a serious commitment.”
The IAD’s Decision was based on the findings described below.
[11]
The dating site is titled “Chinese women seeking single foreign men for dating,
romance, marriage” and “Leading Matrimonial
Service in Asia.” The wife’s profile was entirely in English, even
though she does not understand English, and as early as June 13, 2009, the
Applicant’s wife wrote in an e-mail that she was interested in moving to her
future husband’s country after she married. However, at the hearing, she
changed her evidence and testified that she did not consider moving until she
married the Applicant in October 2009.
[12]
The Applicant’s wife also agreed at the hearing
that she was looking for a husband from abroad. However, her testimony about
the website was not clear. At first, she said that the site was primarily to
match men and women within China, but she later testified that she knew that the
site was also matching Chinese people with partners abroad.
[13]
There were also significant inconsistencies in
their testimony. For example:
i.
the Applicant said that after their marriage,
they spent the entire time at his friend’s place in China, while his wife
testified that after their wedding, they moved to her home. When confronted
with this contradiction, the Applicant explained that they stayed at his wife’s
mother’s home if they stayed out late;
ii.
the Applicant testified that his wife works as a
cosmetic sales person in a mall, but she testified that she sold cosmetic
products to a beauty shop and did not go to the mall on a daily basis;
iii.
the Applicant testified that his wife lives with
her mother and brother, and his son; that she supports her family and cares for
her sick mother; and that her sister and brother will care for her mother if
she leaves China. However, his wife testified that she lives with her mother
and nephew. Her brother moved out four years ago. She also said that her
mother does not require much care, and that her elder sister will care for her
mother if she moves to Canada.
II.
CONCLUSIONS
[14]
The Applicant submits that the IAD failed to
consider all the evidence including his financial support and letters and
photos and telephone records showing interaction. However, in my view, the
Decision makes it clear in paras. 27 to 29 that the IAD was aware of this
evidence. Nevertheless, given that the Applicant spent only two weeks each
year with his wife, the IAD found that the Applicant had not achieved a genuine
marriage. In my view, this was a reasonable conclusion.
[15]
The Applicant also says that the IAD’s
credibility findings were unreasonable. However, in my view, they were
entirely reasonable and demonstrated that the Applicant and his wife failed to
communicate on very basic matters such as her work and home life.
[16]
Lastly, the Applicant says that the IAD
unreasonably included that his wife was looking for a foreign husband so she
could leave China. In my view, this conclusion was also reasonable given her
evidence that her sister could care for her mother and her e-mail written four
months before the marriage saying she would be interested in moving to another
country.
[17]
No question was posed for certification for
appeal under section 74(d) of the IRPA.
Email this Content