Docket: IMM-12719-23
Citation: 2025 FC 364
Ottawa, Ontario, March 4, 2025
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney
BETWEEN: |
DARIN BENTAN ROBERTS
|
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered from the Bench via videoconference on February 24, 2025)
[1] The Applicant, Darin Bentan Roberts, seeks judicial review of the Officer’s decision to refuse his application for permanent residence under a spousal sponsorship. The Officer’s decision rests on a finding that the Applicant’s marriage to his wife and sponsor, Nordica Glasgow (the Sponsor), was not genuine.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He came to Canada in 2007 and remained here without status since that time. The Applicant met the Sponsor in 2012, and they married in 2017. In September 2019 they submitted a spousal sponsorship application, which would have regularized the Applicant’s status in Canada.
[3] On March 30, 2023, the Sponsor contacted the Respondent by phone, saying she wanted to withdraw the sponsorship application. She was advised to provide the sponsorship withdrawal form. On June 1, 2023, an Immigration Officer contacted the Sponsor to follow up on her request to withdraw the sponsorship. The Sponsor indicated that she no longer wished to withdraw the application. The file was then referred for review and the Applicant and Sponsor were invited to attend an in-person interview.
[4] The Applicant and Sponsor were interviewed separately to verify the bona fides of their relationship. The Officer’s decision is based on the Sponsor’s statements during her interview. The Sponsor was asked a series of questions about the evolution of her relationship with the Applicant, and their marriage and life together.
[5] Towards the end of the interview, the Officer asked the Sponsor why she had contacted the call centre in March 2023 advising that she wanted to withdraw the application. The Sponsor replied that she and the Applicant had been having problems in their marriage because he was being unfaithful, but that she “still want[ed] to help him get his stuff because he’s a good guy.”
When asked about the follow-up call in June 2023, the Sponsor indicated that she still wanted to help the Applicant although his behaviour had not changed. The Officer’s notes then record the following exchange:
Q.: Do you think he’s stay (sic) with you if it we’re (sic) not for the [Permanent Residence] application?
A.: No, that’s why he’s with me. He’s waiting for this stuff. The only reason he’s still with me is because of this application.
[6] Based on the information in the record, including the notes from the interviews of the Sponsor and the Applicant, the Officer denied the sponsorship application, stating they were not satisfied that the Applicant and Sponsor were in a genuine marriage.
[7] The Applicant seeks judicial review of this decision.
[8] This matter was originally set down for hearing on February 10, 2024, but it was adjourned because the Officer’s interview notes were not included in the original CTR. The notes were disclosed in a Supplementary CTR approximately one week prior to the hearing, but counsel for the Applicant was absent from his office due to illness and did not have an opportunity to review them with his client. The hearing was adjourned until February 24, 2025, and both parties filed brief supplementary materials.
[9] The Applicant’s main argument is that the Officer gave undue weight to the Sponsor’s statements during the interview and downplayed the fact that she had previously indicated to an Immigration Officer that she did not want to withdraw the application. He says that it is normal in any marriage to have disagreements, but the evidence submitted in this case demonstrates that he and the Sponsor have a long-lasting and genuine marriage. The Applicant points out that the other answers he and the Sponsor provided about their relationship all tallied, and that this indicates that they had a genuine marriage.
[10] The Sponsor submitted a supplementary affidavit following a review of the Officer’s interview notes. In that affidavit, the Sponsor states that she has “come to the conclusion that the officer may have taken my statements out of context.”
She refers to the statement in the notes that the Applicant is only staying with her because of the sponsorship application, and explains as follows:
5. That I made the statement then, because I was very upset because he was cheating on me. We have since resolved all our differences and he is now a changed and loving man. He has stopped cheating and has apologised for his mistakes.
[11] The Applicant submits that the evidence shows that his marriage to the Sponsor is genuine, that she made the statements about withdrawing the application when she was angry. He argues that the Officer gave too much emphasis to that one statement, while ignoring the rest of the evidence that supports the genuineness of their marriage.
[12] I am not persuaded. The Officer’s decision is clear, and the reasoning process reflects the legal framework and the evidence.
[13] Section 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse or common-law partner if the marriage is not genuine or was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status. It is established law that significant deference is owed to immigration officers who assess the bona fides of a marriage: Onwubolu v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 19 at para 11, citing Shahzad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 999 at para 14.
[14] The Officer’s decision is to be reviewed under the framework for reasonableness review set out in (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov], and confirmed in Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21. One element of that framework is that a reviewing court is not to re-weigh the evidence unless exceptional circumstances are established (Vavilov at para 125). No such exceptional circumstances exist here.
[15] In this case, the Officer was entitled to rely on the Sponsor’s statements during the interview. In particular, two statements are particularly important, given the legal framework. The Sponsor indicated that she wanted to help the Applicant out, and she said that “the only reason [the Applicant is] with me is because of this application”
. The Sponsor has not denied making either statement.
[16] The Applicant says that the Officer ignored the fact that the Sponsor had previously indicated that she no longer wanted to withdraw the application. I disagree. The sequence of sequence of events is important. In March 2023, the Sponsor indicated she wanted to withdraw the application. On June 1, 2023, she stated she no longer wanted to withdraw it. On September 1, 2023, the Sponsor and Applicant attended for in-person interviews, and the Sponsor explained why she was continuing with the application and made the other statements quoted in the Officer’s notes. The Sponsor does not deny making these statements, but explains them as the product of her anger towards the Applicant because of his behaviour. Based on this chronology, there was no basis for the Officer to reject the Sponsor’s statements during the interview simply because she had previously indicated she wanted to continue with the application.
[17] I can find no basis to conclude that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable. The fact that the evidence shows that the marriage has continued, and the Sponsor indicates that their relationship has improved, is not a ground to question the decision, which was based on the evidence that was before the Officer at that time.
[18] The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification.
Email this Content