 
IAD.34.1 (04.2013)  
Disponible en français   
 
 
Immigration and  
Refugee Board of Canada  
 
Immigration Appeal Division  
  
Commission de l’immigration  
et du statut de réfugié du Canada  
 
Section d’appel de l’immigration  
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
Client ID No. / No ID client : 58647924  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP  
 
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
   
Respondent  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  Intimé(e)  
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  November  4, 2019  
  Date(s) de l’audience  
   
Place of Hearing  Montréal, Quebec  
 Lieu de l’audience  
   
Date of Decision  December  12, 2019  
  Date de la décision  
   
Panel  Me XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
 Tribunal  
   
Counsel for the 
Appellant(s)  N/A  Conseil(s) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (e) 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX (e)(s)  
   
Designated  
Representative(s)  N/A  Représentant(e) (s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil(s) du (de la) 
ministre  
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
2 REASONS FOR DECISION  
INTRODUCTION  
[1] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  (the appel lant) is appe aling  against  the refusal of  the permanent 
resident visa application of his wife  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX AKISSI  (the  applicant ) under 
subsection  63(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.1  
 
[2] On October  1, 2018, a visa officer in Rabat,  Morocco, refused  the application because  the 
marriage of the appe llant and the  applicant was not  genuine and  was entered into primarily for 
the purpose of acquiring  a status or  privile ge under the  IRPA .  
ISSUES  
[3] The issue before  the panel is to determine whether  subsection  4(1) of the Immigration 
and Refugee P rotection Regulations2 (IRPR) applies , excluding  the applicant from the family 
class. The test articulated in the IRPR is a  two-pronged test, namely  that  
 
4.(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered a 
spouse, a common -law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, 
com mon -law partnership 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 . 
 
[4] For  this appe al to be allowed , the appel lant must demonstrate  that the se two prongs  under  
subsection  4(1) of the Regulations  do not apply to their  relation ship , i.e., the appe llant must show  
1) that the relationship was not entered i nto primarily for the purp ose of acquiring a status or 
privilege under the IRPA ; and 2) that it is genuine .  
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
3 DETERMINATION  
[5] Having considered the evidence in its entirety, the panel determi nes, for  the following 
reasons, that the appellant demonstrated that the relationship was not entered into primarily for 
immigration purposes and that it is genuine.  The appeal is therefore allowed.  
BACKGROUND  
[6] The appellant was not represented at the hearing. He testified in person. The applicant  
testified by  Skype. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, the appe llant’s brother and  SébastiXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, one 
of the appe llant ’s friends , also testif ied in person . 
 
[7] The appe llant was born on January  22, 1957, in Montréal. He is from a family of  
10 children . He has seven  brothers and two sisters. His  parents are deceased , but all of his 
brothe rs and sisters are alive. They h ave family get -togethers ever y Sunday. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX was 
very close to his mother and talked to her almost every day  before she died in September  2017. 
He was deeply affected  by his mother’s death.   
History of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX marriages  
[8] The appe llant got married  for the first  time in 1980. The couple separated  in 1988. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX explained that the breakup was very  difficult for him. His first wife did not want to 
have any children whereas he  wanted to have children .  
 
[9] The appellant’s second marriage lasted from 2003 to 2006 . According to the appe llant, 
the relation ship ended following problems with his wife’s son . 
 
[10]  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX sponsored his third  wife from  Morocco. He got married in  Morocco  on 
May  10, 2007. He  was married to his third wife  from 2007 to  2017, and the divorce t ook  effect 
on May  12, 201 7.3 The couple lived together  in the appellant ’s house in Laval. The couple had 
separated  before the first contact between the appellant  and the  applicant . The appellant  stated 
that he  want ed to have children, but  his wif e was unable to have any .  
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
4 [11]  When he met  the applicant , the appellant  was living  in Laval in a  house that he owned. 
He worked as the  manager of  a large  cemete ry in the Laval  area . 
Meeting with the  applicant  
[12]  They first met  on the  Black and Beauties  dating  site  (online)  on September  30, 2016. The  
applicant  testified that, at that time,  she was  seeking a mature  man , and that she  had indicated  in 
her  profil e on the  site that she was  single and  look ing for a man to  start  a family  with . She 
testified that the appellant  had put his  photo graph  in his  profile and indicated that he was looking 
for a soul mat e ready to start a family, was in Canada and  was not a complicated man. The 
appellant  stated  he sent messages to several people, including the appli cant. He had seen the 
applicant’ s photo graph  on the site. After texting each other, the couple decided, on the same day 
that they me t on the site,  to communicate by way of video  chat on  Skype. The applicant testified  
that she found the appellant  handsome  and funny. The appellant  learned that the applicant had 
been living in Marrakesh  for three years. They talked about various topics , including things they 
liked. The appellant  testified that he had laughingly  said in the days following  their first meeting 
that, if she continued to be so nice, he would visit her in Morocco. Both testified that they had 
bonded  while talking . As the appellant was scheduled to take  some vacation  time  from his job , 
he decided to go to Morocco and meet the applicant in person . 
 
[13]  The applic ant was born in Abidjan, Ivory Coast , on Septe mber  14, 1985. She moved to 
Marrakes h in 2014 to study to become a flight attendant. She had a scholarship and studied for 
one year, but was unable to finish  her course. She has a brother who lives in  Ghana and two 
sisters who live in Ivory Coast and one  sister who is a missionary in the Congo. At the time of 
their meeting on the web site , the applicant was working in a restaurant as a hostess in Marrakesh .   
First  trip  
[14]  The appellant  therefore travelled  to Marrakesh  on October  16, 2016, a few weeks after 
their first contact. The applicant met him at the airport and the appellant  testifies that he saw a 
radiant person  in front of him . He had rented an apartment in Marrakesh  for his stay. The 
appellant  had already been to Morocco seven or eight times before this trip, where he had 
married his third wife. However, he had never visited Marrakesh and the app licant  showed him 
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
5 around the city during his eight -day stay . The applicant stayed with him in th e ap artment he  
rented. During this visit , the appellant  spoke on the p hone with one of the applicant’s  sisters. The 
applicant spoke for the first time to the appellant ’s mother in Canada. The appellant  also met the 
applicant’ s niece. After this trip, the coupl e continued to communicate on  a daily basis, mainly 
by Skype . 
Second trip  
[15]  The second trip took place in February  2017. The appellant  returned to  Marrakesh  and 
stayed there for about 15 days. He rented an apartment in the same building where he had stayed 
on his first trip. He spent the 15 days with  the a pplicant. The couple went for walk s in 
Marrakesh , spent time in the apartment and watched  films, among ot her things . 
Third trip and marriage  
[16]  The third trip took place in September  2017.  
 
[17]  The appellant testified that the purpose of this third trip was to marry the applicant and 
complete the documentation to sponsor her. He knew the steps to follow, having sponsored his 
third wife . 
 
[18]  Before leaving for Morocco to get married, the appellant  had gone to see his mother one 
last time, knowing that she would probably pass away  during his trip. She had, moreo ver, told 
him not to change his plans. His mother passed away  a few days before the wedding . The 
appellant testified that the ap plicant cried the entire day that she died and that neither he nor the 
applicant had felt like celebrating or getting married.  That being said, since he had used his  
vacation to get married, he decided to go ahead with it. His brother XXXXXX had stayed in Canada 
with their mother and attended the funeral before leaving for Morocco to attend the appellant’s 
wedding . 
 
[19]  When asked why it was important to proceed with the wedding, given his mother’s 
imminent death , the appellant explained that it was necessary to do it  in order to obtain the 
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
6 documents for the sponsorship. The appellant went to the Canadian Embassy in Morocco to 
complete the sponsorship application during th e trip . 
 
[20]  The appellant  had rented an apartment in Bouznika and a car for the visit . He stayed for a 
month . 
 
[21]  The couple was m arried at the Embassy of Ivory Coast  in Morocco on  September  29, 
2017 , in the presence of the appellant ’s brother and a friend of th e applicant. When asked why 
the wedding  took place in the presence of so few people, and e specially in the absence of the 
family members of the applicant , who w as marrying for the  first time , the appellant  testified that 
the applicant’s famil y members were  not available to come to  Morocco . 
Fourth  trip  
[22]  The appellant  went to the Ivory Coast on January  15, 2019, to spend two weeks with his 
wife. Among other things, the couple celebrated their wedding  in the company of the applicant's 
siblings and the appellant  briefly met her  mother. Photo graph s of the celebration have been filed 
as evidence . 
 
[23]  When asked why he did not return to see his wife until January  2019, the appellant 
testified that he did not leave earlier because, prior to receiving the refusal letter in October  2018, 
he had feared  being  absent in case the immigration agency asked him for additional 
documentation. He states  that, following the refusal, he talked with  his wife about the  possibility 
of going to live with her. He believes that this is what she would have prefer red , but the couple 
decided to appeal the refusal and wait for the decision before moving on to another stage . 
Possible move i n 2019  
[24]  At the time of the hearing, the appellant had been living i n Victoriaville for six months , 
alone in an apartment. Before that, he lived in a house in Laval that he owned. In early 2019, 
after the visa application was refused, the appellant was thinking of moving to Morocco or the 
Ivory C oast to be closer to his wife. He then quit his job as cemetery manager, sold his house in 
Laval and moved to Victoriaville. He quickly found a job in Victoriaville, which he had held for 
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
7 six months at the time of the hearing. In early 2019 , he had request ed a quote for moving  his 
personal effects  to Morocco. The quote  in question, dated Feb ruary  7, 2019, was filed on the 
record .4 
The officer’s concerns  
[25]  After interviewing the applicant on September  27, 2018, the immigration officer foun d 
that she had only superficial knowledge of the appellant’s  family and the appellant’s past and 
that the circumstances and development  of the relationship were questionable and suggested that 
she was using the marriage for the sole purpose of acquiring st atus in Canada. In particular, the 
officer noted that she did not appear to be aware that the appellant had been married three times. 
A review of the notes confirms that the applicant did not correct the officer when he stated that 
the appellant had been m arried twice. The panel does not find that this answer  demonstrates a 
poor knowledge of the appellant. In  fact , it c ould be said that the appellant’ s answer was correct 
because the appellant had been married at least twice. In short, the panel finds that t he applicant 
knew that the appellant had been married at least twice before, and that she named his last wife  
and knew that she was Moroccan. These were  the mos t relevant factors  to know  in the panel ’s 
opinion . 
[26]  The offic er foun d that the applicant’ s statem ent that she informed her sister of the 
marriage implies that she did not inform her  mother. However, the applicant  testified  that she 
could not inform her mother because the latter  live s in a remote village in Ivory Coast  and does 
not have a telephone. The applicant therefore relied on her si ster to inform their mother of her 
marriage.   
ANALYSIS  
Prong  1 - Was the relationship entered into primarily for immigration purposes ? 
[27]  In analyzing whether a relationship was entered into primarily for immigration purposes, 
the panel must rely on clear and conclusive evidence in the particular context of each case.   
 
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
8 [28]  The Mini ster submits that the applicant’s [translation]  “economic and migratory 
situation”  in Morocco point s, among othe r things, to the conclusion that she wishes to acquire 
status elsewhere, including in Canada. The Minister maintains that she did not have stable work 
and that it is reasonable to believe that she would have seduced the appellant to come to Canada. 
The Min ister adds that the speed with which the relationship developed supports this conclusion. 
Furthermore, the Minister adds that the ev idence shows that the applicant’s niece had married XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and that it would be reasonable to conclude that she did so in order to obtain 
status in another country, and to draw the conclusion that the applicant did the same .  
 
[29]  The Minister argues that it is possible that the relationship may ha ve developed since the 
marriage  but that , at the time of the marriage , the main purpose was to obtain  status . 
 
[30]  For the following reasons, the panel is of the opinion that it would be purely speculative 
to draw the conclusions advanced by the Minister. In this case, the evidence establishes  that the 
applicant had stable empl oyment when she met the appellant. The evidence suggests that she 
would like the appella nt to move to Morocco or Côte d’ Ivoire. The appellant has no family 
members in Canada. As to the marital status of her niece, the evidence that the latter  married a 
Lux embourger was not conclusive .  
 
[31]  The age difference between the parties may r aise doubts as to the applicant’ s intentions.  
The testimony of the appellant’ s brother  somewhat dispels those doubts.  It is clear to the panel  
that this is a partisan witness who w ants his brother to be reunited with his wife. That being said, 
he kno ws the history of the appellant’ s relatio nship s and has known his brother’ s w ives, 
including his third wife.  He notes that the fact that the appellant is Catholic is a positive aspect of 
this relationship. The brother was present at the marriage in Morocco and concluded that it was a 
marriage based on a genuine couple relationship and not for immigration purpose s. The panel 
gives some weight to this testimony .  
 
[32]  The burden of proof is on the appellant. In this case, the appellant has demonstrated, on a 
balance of probabilities, that he is very familiar with  the country where his wife lives and is quite  
comfortabl e in Côte d’Ivoire, his wife’ s native country. His detailed c hronicles of his stay in 
Côte d’ Ivoire in 2019 show that they are a couple who are supported by the applicant’s family 
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
9 and friends. This is not the appellant’s first marriage and his testimony establishes  that he is 
ready to set tle either in Morocco or Côte d’ Ivoire. Th e more impor tant factor is, of course, the 
applicant’ s intent . All of the ev idence, including the applicant’ s relationship with the appellant’ s 
family, the testimony of the appella nt’s brother, the fact that she primarily wanted a relationship 
with a serious man, and the fact t hat she supported the appellant’s decision to sell his  home and 
leave his job to be with her, demonstrate , on a balance of probabilities , that this relationshi p was 
not entered into primarily for immigration purposes . 
Prong 2 – Genuineness  of the  mar riage  
[33]  The panel must analyze the testimony and evidence in light of generally accepted factors 
to determine the genuineness of a marriage. The panel is careful not to apply those factors 
consistently or give them the same weight in all cases. Every relationship is different. It cannot 
be concluded that a relationship is not genuine simply because it does not conform to the 
perception of a traditional conjugal relationship. The panel notes, and has already found , that a 
significant difference in age or life experi ences is not, in and of itself , an indicator that a conjugal 
relationship is not genuine. Nor is it a question of trying to identify the slightest contradictions, 
as these will always occur. The analysis must be based on all of the circumstances .  
 
The int ent of the parties to the marriage  
[34]  The panel  must analyze the intent  of the spouses at the time they wed . That said, the 
intent of the parties  is often clearer with a degree of  hindsight. In this case, the relationship has 
lasted since 2016. The appellant returned four times to Morocco, a country he knows well, to be 
with the applicant. This is not his first marriage , and he was previously  married to a Moroccan 
woman . 
[35]  The age di fference between the parties was raised by both the officer and the Minister. In 
this case, there is a gap of almost 30 years. The panel notes, however, that despite his age, the 
appellant still wishes to start a family. The appellant has the same desire. It goes without saying 
that the appellant therefore had to find a wif e youn ger than himself. The applicant’ s testimony 
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
10 also establishes  that she was looking for a mature  man. In short, the parties ’ intent  seems to have 
been fulfilled by their choice s.  
 
[36]  The appellant testified that he thought about going to live in Morocco with his wif e. The 
panel  gives some weight to the steps taken by the appellant in the analysis of his intent .  
 
[37]  The panel  concludes that the intent  of the parties in this case is a positive factor in the  
analysis . 
The length and development of the relationship  
[38]  The Minister submits that the relationship developed  too quickly . At first glance, the 
development  of the relationship may appear to be fast . However, the panel  must consider the 
context. In this case, the intentions expressed on the dating site were to start  a family. Given the 
appellant ’s age , the development of the relationship is understandable .  
 
[39]  The Minister argues that the contradictions in the spo uses’  testimony about the 
development  of the relationship, including the different versions of how the marriage proposal 
unfolded, raise doubts about the relationship and the parties’ credibility . In fact, first, one of the 
parties testified that the proposal was made in the apartment and that , after the proposal , the two  
went together to buy the rings. T he other stated  that the proposal was made in a café in 
Marrakesh, but made a correction  once confronted with the other  person ’s version. The panel  
cannot find  that this discrepancy undermines  the credibility of either party or calls into question 
the genuin eness of the relationship. What is clear from the evidence is that the proposal  was 
made in the simplest possible manner . 
 
[40]  The testimony of the appellant’ s brother supports the genuineness  of the relat ionship. He 
knows the appellant’ s relationship history and spent a week wi th the couple after their wedding . 
He points out that the applicant is familiar with the appellant ’s siblings and communicates 
frequently with them. He adds that the fact that the applicant is Catholic complement s the 
couple ’s relationship , contrary to his brother’s  last marriage . 
 
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
11 [41]  All in all, the evolution and the duration of the relationship are positive factors in the 
analysis of the genuineness  of the relationship . 
The amount of time spent together  
[42]  The  spouses have spent little time together s ince they first met. The appellant ’s stays in 
Morocco and Ivory Coast  were  relatively short.  This is a negative factor.  
Behaviour at and subsequ ent to the wedding  
[43]  As for the wedding  at the embassy in the presence of only two witnesses, it would be 
reasonable to wonder why the applicant, who was marrying for the first time, was  not surrounded 
by her family  members . That being said, she explained that all of her family members were 
abroad. She had wanted her niece to attend the wedding, but it appears that her niece was 
prevented from attending at the last minute by her spouse. The appellant stated that he had taken 
a vacation to go to the wedding and complete the sponsors hip process. Despite his mother’ s 
death, he wanted to proceed. His brother came from Canada to be a witness, despite  being in 
mourning . 
[44]  Although the applicant is Catholic, she knew that she could not marry in c hurch because 
of the appellant’s  divorce . 
 
[45]  The panel  notes tha t the appellant went to Ivory Coast  in J anuary  2019 and that, during 
the trip, the couple celebrated their union in the prese nce of the applicant’ s family  members . 
 
[46]  The panel  find s that behaviour at the time of the marriage and after t he marriage is a 
positive factor . 
Knowledge of each other’ s relationship histories  and family  
[47]  The testimonies  establish  that each party ha s a good knowledge of the other’ s background 
and a v ery good knowledge of the other  person ’s family. Moreover, the appellant made a point, 
from the very beginning of the relationship, of introducing the applicant to his  elderly mother, 
who was very dear to him .  
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
12  
[48]  This is a positive aspect.  
Extent  of continuing contact and communication  
[49]  The evidence on the record demonstrates sustained daily communication between the 
appellant and the applicant . The witnesses —both the appellant’s brother and his friend —
confirmed witnessing long daily conversations between the spouses. In fact, the friend had 
stayed at the appellant ’s home for six months and heard the couple talking to each other for long 
periods of time every day . 
 
[50]  In addition, communications between the applicant and the appellant ’s siblings in Canada 
are frequent, especially at family gather ings on Sundays . 
 
[51]  The appellant’ s brother has formed a group on an Internet communications site through 
which he regularly communicates with the applicant.  
 
[52]  This is a significant positive factor.   
Provision of financial support by the other party  
[53]  The appellant  left a credit card with the applicant after his  second trip. He testified that 
she spent between $50 and $75 per month. She works and does not need financial support.  
 
[54]  The panel  is of the opinion that given the respective situations of the parti es, the 
provision of financial support is not a relevant factor in the analysis of the genuineness  of this 
relationship.  
Conclusion regarding the genuin eness of the marriage  
[55]  The panel  must decide each case on the basis of the evidence before it. In this c ase, the 
panel considered all of the evidence, including the testimony of the spouses, the two witnesses, 
the desire of both to st art a family, and the appellant’ s relationship history. The panel finds that 
the appellant has demonstrated, on a balance of p robabilities, that the marriage is genuine .  
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
13 CONCLUSION  
[56]  The appeal is allowed.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB8 -23299  
 
14 NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 
The appeal is allowed . 
 
 (signed by)   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  Me XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  December  12, 2019  
  Date  
 
 
IRB translation  
Original language: French  
 
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you may m ake an application  to the Federal Court for 
judicial review of this decision.  You may wish to get advice from c ounsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application.  
                                                 
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27, amended version.  
2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002 -227.  
3 Appeal Book, page  57.  
4 Exhibit A -6. 
2019 CanLII 132395 (CA IRB)

