In Marriage Genuineness, the Federal Court dismissed Ibifuro Stella Williams’s challenge to the refusal of her family-class permanent residence application. The Court found it was reasonably open to the immigration officer to conclude that her marriage to Canadian sponsor Omorede Agbonifo was not genuine under subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Family-class application refused over marriage concerns
Ms. Williams, a Nigerian citizen, married Mr. Agbonifo on April 15, 2023. She applied for permanent residence under the family class in October 2023, with Mr. Agbonifo as her sponsor.
An immigration officer refused the application on November 27, 2024. The officer was not satisfied that the marriage was genuine or that it had not been entered into primarily to acquire status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Ms. Williams sought judicial review of that refusal. At the hearing, she withdrew procedural fairness arguments following disclosure in the Certified Tribunal Record, leaving the reasonableness of the officer’s decision as the sole issue.
Applicant challenged evidence and officer’s considerations
Ms. Williams argued that the officer overlooked evidence supporting the marriage, including a lease renewal agreement signed by both spouses. She also argued that the officer unreasonably relied on peripheral or irrelevant matters.
Her concerns included the timing of the couple’s prior divorces, the fact that her two children were in Canada with student visas, and the officer’s reference to the continuing presence of the children’s biological father.
Court found the officer’s concerns reasonable
Justice Lafrenière found no merit in the argument about the lease renewal agreement. The officer’s concern was not whether the lease had been executed, but who was paying the rent. Ms. Williams had said Mr. Agbonifo paid the rent, but stated when asked for proof that payments came from her account. The Court held that it was reasonable for the officer to have credibility concerns in light of those contradictory accounts.
The Court also held that the timing of the spouses’ divorces was relevant in the spousal sponsorship context. It found that the proximity of their divorces to the permanent residence application was a factor immigration authorities could properly assess when considering whether the relationship was a genuine marriage.
The officer could also reasonably view the presence of Ms. Williams’s children in Alberta as an incentive for her to seek a pathway to remain in Canada, including through a marriage of convenience. On the officer’s comments about the children’s biological father, the Court found no reviewable error in the related credibility finding after considering the interview context.
The Court noted several interview inconsistencies identified by the officer, including conflicting statements about household expenses and their payment, Mr. Agbonifo’s inconsistent answers about Ms. Williams’s siblings, differing addresses on the lease and Ms. Williams’s driver’s licence, and the couple’s lack of knowledge of each other’s mothers’ names. These inconsistencies were not seriously disputed by Ms. Williams.
Judicial review dismissed
The Court concluded that the officer’s finding that the marriage was not genuine was reasonably open on the record. It described the officer’s reasoning as clear and amply supported by the evidence.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. No question was certified.
What the decision means
This decision concerns the reasonableness of the refusal in this particular family-class application. It illustrates that the Court may uphold a marriage-genuineness finding where an officer identifies material credibility concerns and inconsistencies that are supported by the record.
Source: Federal Court Decisions