 
 
 
 
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI : VB1 -01421  
 
Client ID No. / No ID client : 3109 -5259  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP  
 
 
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXX  PHAM  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
   
Respondent  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  Intimé(e)  
   
  
  
Date(s) of Hearing  January 18 , 2012  
 Date(s) de l’audience  
   
   
Place of Hearing  Calgary, AB   Lieu de l’audience  
   
  
  
Date of Decision  February 18, 2013  
 Date de la décision  
   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
  
  
Counsel for the  
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXX  
Barrister and Solicitor  Conseil(s) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) / 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)  
   
  
  
Designated 
Representative(s)  N/A  Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
 
  
 
  
Counsel for the Minister  StephaXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil du ministre  
   
 
 
2013 CanLII 97567 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB1 -01421   
 REASONS FOR DECISION  
 
[1] These are my reasons and decision in the appeal of XXXXXXXXXXXX  (the “appellant ”) 
who appeals the refusal to approve the permanent resident visa application of his wife XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX(the “applicant ”) who applied to immi grate to Canada as a member of the family 
class.  
 
[2] This couple married in Vietnam on April 12, 2009 and the appellant subsequently filed an 
application to sponsor his wife for immigration to Canada. The applicant was inte rviewed by a 
visa officer in Ho Chi Minh City on March 2, 2011. It was following that interview that the visa 
officer refused her application to immigrate to Canada pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the 
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Reg ulations” )1 on the grounds that the 
visa officer concluded the marriage was not genuine and had been entered into by the applicant 
primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee 
Protection Act (the “Act” ).2 
 
[3] Subs ection 4(1) of the Regulations  provides as follows:  
 
4.(1)  Bad Faith  – For the purposes of these R egulations, a foreign 
national shall not be considered a spouse, a common -law partner or a 
conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common -law par tnership or 
conjugal partnership  
(a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or 
privilege under the Act; or,  
(b) is not genuine.3 
 
[4] In order for a foreign national to be caught by s ubs ection 4(1) of the Regulations , the 
preponderance of r eliable evidence must demonstrate that the marriage is not genuine or was 
entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Act . The onus is 
                                                                 
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002 – 227.  
2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (the “Act” ), S.C. 2001, c. 27.  
3 Immigration and Refugee Protec tion Regulations, SOR/2010 -208.  It should be noted that s ubs ection 4(1) of the 
Regulations  came int o force on September 30, 2010. Under the new test, the appellant must demonstrate on the 
balance of probabilities that the marriage is genuine and  that it wa s not entered into for the purposes of acquiring 
any status or privilege.  
2013 CanLII 97567 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB1 -01421   
 on an a ppellant to demonstrate that the a pplicant is not caught by the excluding provisions of the 
Regulations.  
 
[5] The visa officer had a number of concerns. First ly, there was inconsistent information 
between the sponsorship application forms and the information the applicant provided at the 
interview with regards to when she met the ap pellant’s parents. Secondly, t he appellant’s parents 
did not attend the wedding. Lastly, t he applicant demonstrated a limited knowledge of the 
appellant and a lack of future plans. Based on the information gathered from the documentary 
evidence and at the interview, the visa officer refused the sponsorship application. The appellant 
contends that the decision of the visa  officer was incorrect, that his marriage is genuine and he 
asked me to allow his  appeal. After hearing the oral testimony, the Minister of  Citizenship and 
Immigration (the respondent) maintained that the marriage is not genuine and was entered into 
primarily for the purpose of gaining status or privilege under the Act and asked that the appeal be 
dismissed.  
 
[6] In reaching my decision, I consid ered the Record and the materials tendered by the 
appellant,4 the oral testimony of the appellant and applicant , and the submissions of counsel for 
the appellant and respondent.  
 
[7] By way of background, the appellant was born in Vietnam on July 6, 1988. He 
immigrated to Canada as a dependent of his parents on May 30, 1996. He had not been 
previously married.  
 
[8] The applicant is a Vietnamese national, born on April 4, 1990. She was born in Binh Dinh 
and moved to Ho Chi Minh City at the age of 16 years, where sh e resided with an aunt. The 
applicant had not been previously married. The appellant testified that he was in Vietnam in July 
2006 and went into a restaurant. By chance, he sat near the applicant and they began talking. 
They exchanged phone numbers and the  appellant telephoned the applicant and they saw each 
other four times in the following week. The applicant testified she saw him off at the airport on 
his return to Canada and they continued to contact each other regularly over the next three years. 
                                                                 
4 Exhibit A -1, A -2 and A -3. 
2013 CanLII 97567 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB1 -01421   
 In Ma rch 2009, the appellant proposed marriage and he returned to Vietnam where they were 
married on April 12, 2009. The appellant returned to Canada on May 15, 2009 and went back to 
Vietnam for one visit between February 10, 2010 and March 14, 2010.  
 
[9] The appel lant characterized the marriage, from his perspective, as an elopement because 
he did not inform his parents of the marriage prior to going to Vietnam in 2009. He testified he 
told his uncle because he trusted this uncle would not pass the information  abou t his marriage  to 
his parents. The appellant failed to read the letter of support he received from his mother that was 
included in his disclosure5 because his mother wrote, “My brother called and asked for my 
opinion. I was strong and firm about my decisio n and do not accepted [sic] the wedding.” Even if 
I were to accept the appellant did not know about his mother’s knowledge of the wedding, it does 
not explain why or how the applicant’s family was so accepting of this marriage, given they had 
not met the a ppellant prior to the proposal and his parents were too busy to arrange or attend the 
wedding.  
 
[10]  From the applicant’s perspective, it was not an elopement because her parents were 
advised of the proposal and participated in the wedding. The appellant testi fied he did not speak 
to her parents before they met just prior to the wedding. He stated that parents in the country 
(referring to the rural areas) do not have much opinion about their children and once they become 
adults, the children are on their own. T he appellant testified that the applicant’s parents advised 
her that as long as she was happy, she should go ahead with the marriage. On the other hand, the 
applicant testified that her parents were concerned. She said that when the applicant proposed, he 
asked her for her parent’s phone number so he could call them and ask for their consent. 
Immediately after the phone call, the appellant telephoned her and told her about the call. She 
also testified that she spoke to her parents about the call and when he r parents met the appellant 
just prior to the wedding, their fears subsided and they agreed to the marriage.  This is 
inconsistent with the appellant’s testimony that he had not spoken to them prior to meeting in 
person.  
 
                                                                 
5 Exhibit A -1, p. 86.  
2013 CanLII 97567 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB1 -01421   
 [11]  The applicant told the visa officer  in the interview on March 2, 2011 that she met the 
appellant’s parents in 2006 when she sent them off at the airport, yet the appellant indicated in 
the ‘Sponsor Questionnaire’ that she had only met his friend, XXXXX, from Canada, his aunt and 
uncle, and other friends.6 At hearing, to explain the discrepancy, they tes tified that at the airport 
the appellant w as actually accompanied by his aunt and uncle who he refers to as his parents. 
Even if I accept that the applicant might have been confused by the rel ationships at the time of 
his departure in 2006, it is not reasonable that in March 2011, the applicant would not have 
explained to the visa officer that it was, in fact, his aunt and uncle at the airport and not his 
parents. The appellant’s parents did no t attend the wedding; however, his mother went to 
Vietnam in 2010, apparently met the applicant and was cared for her because she was ill. The 
applicant’s introduction to the appellant’s mother was only one year prior to the interview, so I 
do not accept a s truthful that the applicant thought in the interview of March 2011, that it was 
excusable to refer to his aunt and uncle as his parents. It is much more likely that in 2006, the 
applicant did not go to the airport to see the applicant off and therefore, had no idea who he was 
with at that time. Furthermore, the applicant told the visa officer and testified at hearing that the 
appellant’s sister, who would have been about 14 years old at the time, was at the airport in 2006, 
yet the appellant failed to ind icate his sister  was there and he did not disclose that in the 
application form. This inconsistency was not addressed at the hearing.  
 
[12]  At hearing, the applicant testified that immediately after the wedding, the appellant 
returned to Canada  and  he told her  that his parents were not in agreement with the wedding. The 
appellant testified he did not want t o tell the applicant before the wedding  because he thought it 
would hurt her. This would have meant that the applicant was aware of the reasons his parents 
did not attend in approximately May 2009. Yet she chose to tell the visa officer at the interview 
that his parents did not attend the wedding because they were busy and needed to care for the 
appellant’s 19 -year old sister as she was attending school. It to ok several questions at the hearing 
for the applicant to grasp that she was being questioned about this inconsistency. When she 
finally realized, she testified that she chose to tell the visa officer that his parents were too busy to 
come to the wedding be cause it made more sense to her than saying they had not approved of 
their marriage. I find that it only made more sense to her not to tell the visa officer the truth 
                                                                 
6 Record, p. 32.  
2013 CanLII 97567 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB1 -01421   
 because she wanted to bolster her case. This calls into question the applicant’s credibil ity and the 
reliability of her testimony.   
 
[13]  This couple testified they stayed in regular and frequent contact for close to three years by 
telephone and through Yahoo Chat prior to their marriage. The applicant testified they talked 
about everything regardi ng their everyday lives; yet she did not know that the appellant was 
unemployed from August 2008 until May 2009. Not only is this a sign ificant amount of time, but  
this is  also the period of time leading up to their marriage. The appellant testified he was  in a lot 
of debt; he owed his mother $50,000.00. He has since paid off $30,000.00 of the debt and still 
owes $20,000.00. (The applicant  incidentally knew about the debt, but testified it is entirely paid 
off.) The appellant was deep in debt, had not worke d for several months, but still managed to fly 
to Vietnam and pay for the wedding. It is a concern because it calls into question where he would 
have gotten the money for this expense. Of greater concern is the applicant’s failure to explain 
why she would have agreed to this marriage. She had met him only four or five  times in 2006 and 
had not seen him for almost three years up until their marriage. When asked what it was that 
attracted her to him, she explained that he is honest, gentle, kind, very respons ible and reliable. 
She failed to explain how withholding information about his parent’s approval of the wedding, 
how he managed to get into $50,000.00 debt, and did not work for several months prior to the 
wedding is honest, very responsible or reliable. I  find this vague description of the person you 
chose to marry is merely words, spoken for the purpose of the hearing.  
 
[14]  When the appellant was asked why the applicant had applied for and obtained a passport 
in 2008, he testified he did not know because she  had never been out of Vietnam. The applicant 
testified she went to Thailand with a tour group in March 2012 and further explained that the 
appellant had told her to go ahead on the trip without him. What is of particular concern is that 
the applicant clea rly testified that the appellant had paid for the trip. Her trip was less than one 
year ago and not so long ago to be easily erased from memory . The applicant likely did tell the 
appellant about the trip, but because the marriage is not genuine, the appell ant forgot to make a 
mental note of the trip for the purpose of the appeal.  
 
2013 CanLII 97567 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB1 -01421   
 [15]  There were other inconsistencies. The appellant testified the applicant was shocked when 
he proposed to her; her rendition was quite different. The appellant stated that May 6, 20 09 does 
not mean anything to him; yet that was the day their marriage was registered. When questioned 
about it, he testified he has “no clue” whether the marriage was registered then, but remembered 
they had to fill out some sort of paperwork. If the appel lant were truly invested in this marriage 
and this sponsorship , he would have noted that the date was indicated as the legal marriage on the 
applicant’s ‘Application for Permanent Residence in Canada’.7 Their future plans were vague and 
the dream of openin g one or two restaurants somewhere in the world was not consistent. The 
applicant testified they did not talk about what would happen with their relationship if she were 
not allowed to come to Canada; this would be surprising if the marriage was genuine.  
 
[16]  When the totality of the evidence is taken into consideration, I do not find this marriage is 
genuine. The applicant had applied for and obtained a passport in 2008. If she had testified she 
intended to visit the appellant in Canada at some point, I might have accepted it as a possible 
reason for obtaining a passport . However, she testified that she got one because lots of people in 
Vietnam do. I do not find that to be credible. It is an indication that she had a desire to leave 
Vietnam. The marriage is not  genuine and it follows that the primary purpose of the marriage was 
to facilitate the applicant’s entry to Canada.  
 
[17]  The applicant, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX , is caught by the exclusionary provision as articulated 
in subsection 4(1) of the Regulations. I conclude that the marriage is not genuine and was entered 
into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Act. The appeal of XXXXXXXXXXXXX  is dismissed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
7 Record, p. 4.  
2013 CanLII 97567 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB1 -01421   
 DECISION  
 
The appeal is dismissed.  
 
 
(signed)  “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”  
 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 February 18, 2013  
 Date  
 
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you may make an application to 
the Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court. You may wish to get advice from 
counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application.  
 
2013 CanLII 97567 (CA IRB)

