Docket:
IMM-10013-12
Citation: 2013 FC 1222
Toronto,
Ontario, December 5, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
|
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JEAN ROSALIE MORALES LAOMOC
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS (CANADA BORDER
SERVICES AGENCY)
|
|
Respondents
|
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The present Application is a challenge to an
Immigration Officer’s (Officer) in-land spousal sponsorship decision dated
December 7, 2012 in which the determination was made that the Applicant’s
marriage to her Canadian wife was not genuine and was entered into primarily
for the purpose of acquiring immigration status.
[2]
In the decision the Officer provides the
following rationale for arriving at the negative decision:
The
applicant submits that her marriage to her sponsor is genuine and was not
entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring status or privilege under
Immigration Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
The
sponsor and the applicant provided documents (both before and during their
interview) in support of their relationship, which included, but was not
limited to:
Record of Solemnization
Marriage Certificate M762742
Applicant's Passport UU0689931
Applicant's Birth Certificate
Sponsor's Birth Certificate
Sponsor's Passport WN676037
Sponsor's employment Letter Sponsor's Citizenship Card
T4 or notice of assessment for 2007,2008 & 2009 tax years
Sponsor
Current bank account statements for sponsor( bills, cred~ cards,
phone bills)
Applicant listed as beneficiary on sponsor's bank account (Scotia
Bank)
Applicant's Accidental Death Insurance (Sponsor listed as
beneficiary)
Letters of support from Family doctor, friends, and family
The
documents provided were not, by themselves, determinative of a genuine
relationship or of cohabitation.
During
the interview both the applicant and the sponsor had several discrepancies with
their responses to questions asked.
(Decision,
p.2)
[3]
In the decision the Officer describes four “discrepancies”
on the following topics: whether a roommate was living in the sponsor’s house
when the Applicant moved in; where the Applicant was living before she moved
in; the date on which the Applicant and her sponsor first had “sexual relations”;
and why the sponsor would be nonchalant in learning that the Applicant had lied
to her to make her jealous. Following this description, the Officer concludes
as follows:
The
applicant and the sponsor have provided letters of support regarding their
relationship, however, after careful review of all the written submissions as
well as the answers given during the interview, I am not satisfied that the
applicant and the sponsor are in a genuine marriage and the cohabiting with
each other. Furthermore when presented with my concerns at the end of the
interview, neither the applicant nor the sponsor were able to offer satisfying
explanations to these concerns.
In
light of the overall evidence before me and based on the balance of
probabilities, I am not satisfied that their marriage is genuine and has not
been entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring status under IRP A, as
per R4 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Regulations.
(Decision,
p. 3)
[4]
While the letters of support are mentioned in
the decision and effectively dismissed, the Officer does not say one word about
any of the other documentary evidence presented by the Applicant to prove the
fact that, at the time of the decision, she and her wife enjoyed a genuine
marriage for four years and cohabited for five years. In the course of the
hearing of the present Application, I reviewed the evidence that comprises some
100 pages of apparently authentic copies of verifiable business records. The
evidence all goes to support the purpose for which it was advanced.
[5]
In my opinion, given the volume and apparent
relevance of the documentary evidence to the issues under consideration, the
Officer was required to carefully consider the evidence and to make findings
with respect to its relevance and weight. I find that the Officer’s apparent
failure to perform this requirement renders the decision unreasonable.
Email this Content