 
 
 
  
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. / No de dossier de la SAI : VB9 -07287  
 
Client ID no. / No ID client : 1116 868540  
 
Reasons and  Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP  
   
Appellant(s)  AXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
   
Respondent  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  Intimé (e) 
   
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  September 9, 2020  Date(s) de l’audience  
   
   
   
Place of Hearing  Heard by videoconference  Lieu de l’audience  
 Between Vancouver, BC and Edmonton, AB   
   
   
Date of Decision  September 24, 2020  Date de la décision  
   
   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
   
   
Coun sel for the  Idowu  Ohioze  Conseil(s) de l’appelant(e) /  
Appell ant(s)  Barrister and Solicitor  des appelant(e)(s)  
   
   
   
Designated   N/A  Représentant(e)(s)   
Representative(s)   désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
Counsel for the Minister  Neh a Channan  Conseil du mi nistre  
   
2020 CanLII 107040 (CA IRB)
IAD Fil e No. / N° de dossier  de la SAI : VB9 -07287  
 
 
 
 
 REAS ONS FOR DECISION  
 
OVERVIEW  
 
[1] These are the reasons and de cision of the Immigration Appeal Division (the “IAD”) in 
the appeal of Asha XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXappellant) from a determination made by a visa 
officer refusing the sponsorship applica tion f or MohXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  (the applicant) .  
The visa  officer determin ed that the marriage between the appellant and the applicant was not 
genuine and that it was entered into primarily for the purpose of the applicant gaining permanent 
resident statu s in C anada.   As a  result, t he visa officer determined that the applicant i s not a 
member of the family class.  
 
 
BACKGROUND  
 
[2] The appellant ’s family came to Canada in the 1990’s from Somalia.  The appellant is 
born in Canada.  The appellant was introduced t o the applicant by  her cousin in Kenya.  The 
appellant’s cousin was friends  with the applicant.  The appellant and the applicant contacted  each 
other in February 2017.  As time went on, they increased their contact with each other  through 
the use of social  media .    
 
[3] After a relatively short period of time, the relationship becam e more serious.  In May of 
2017, the appellant and the applican t decided to marry.  The appellant cont inued  her contact with 
the applicant until she traveled to Kenya in January 201 8 to m eet him in p erson.  The appellant 
and the applicant were subsequently  married.  The appellant has continued to be in contact with 
the app licant followi ng their marriage and the appellant provided some financial support to the 
applicant for a period o f app roximately on e and a half years.   
 
2020 CanLII 107040 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB9 -07287  
 
 
 
 
 
 [4] The appellant last saw the applic ant in 2018.  She stated that she has not been able to 
return to Kenya to be with t he applicant because of financial constraints as well as Covid -19  
pandemic.  The visa officer refu sed t he sponsorshi p application based on a number of concerns 
regarding th e relationship.  The officer noted a discrepancy in the time when the applicant and 
the appellant met.  The appellant stated that she and th e applicant made contact in 2017 while the  
appl icant stated to the visa officer in 2015 when he traveled from Somali a to Kenya at the behest 
of the appellant.  There was also an issue regarding the applicant’s father.  He stated at the 
interview that his f ather did not attend the wedding as he was  ill.  The evidenc e presented to the 
panel indicated that the applicant’s father passed away in 2009. Based on these discrepancies and 
other issues from the interview, the visa officer determined that the applicant is not a member of 
the family class.  
 
 
DECIS ION  
 
[5] The panel  finds that the appellant and applicant have provided sufficient credible and 
trustworthy evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that their marriage is genuine and 
that it was not primarily e ntered into for the applicant to o btai n permanent re sident status in 
Canada.   The panel finds that the app licant is a member of the family class and therefore allows 
the appeal . 
 
 
ANALYSIS  
 
[6] The panel finds that the appellant and applicant were credible witnesses.  They testified 
in a strai ghtf orward manner and they were able to reasonably address the concerns r aised by the 
visa officer.  The panel finds that the appellant and applicant reasonably  explained the 
discrepancy regarding the time that the appellant went to Kenya.  The evidence be fore  the visa 
2020 CanLII 107040 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB9 -07287  
 
 
 
 
 
 offi cer indicated that the applicant moved from Somalia to Kenya in 2015 at the behest of the 
appellant.  The evidence they presented at the heari ng is that they made their first contact in 
2017.  The panel finds that they have provided a rea sonable explanatio n for this discrepancy.  
The panel finds that there  was an issue with the interpretation at the interview with the visa 
officer.  The panel fi nds that the applicant was in Kenya in 2015 and that he did not move from 
Somalia to Kenya at th e behest of the ap pellant.  As acknowledged by the Minister’s 
represe ntative there were problems with the interpretation at the visa interview.  The Minister ’s 
represent ative  acknowledged that when the applicant stated at the interview that his father did 
not attend the wed ding, he was referring to his mother.  The evidence  before the panel indicates 
that the applicant’s father passed away in 2009 , so his response as noted in the visa officer’s  
note s was clearly an error in the interpretation of his respons e.  The panel beli eves that a similar 
error occurred when the visa officer asked the applicant when he and the appellant first made 
contact.  The panel accepts that the appellant and the app licant met in 2017 as they described in 
their testimo ny at the hea ring.  
 
[7] The Ministe r’s representative  stated that there w as a discrepancy in the evidence 
regarding the dowry.  The applicant testified that he owes the appellant five thousand dollars as a 
dowry.  The appell ant was asked about a dowry and she stated that s he will not accept  a dowry.  
The panel finds that there is no discrepancy in their evidence.  While the applicant states he owes 
the appellant five thousand dollars, the appellant stated that she will not ac cept a dowry.  The 
panel finds that even if there  was a discrepancy  in their evidence about the dowry, this is a 
peripheral issue that is insufficient for the panel to conclude that the marriage is not genuine or 
that it was entered in to primarily for the applicant to ob tain status in Canada.  
 
[8] The panel finds that the app ellant has provid ed a reasonable explanation for not returning 
to Kenya to see her husband.  The panel accepts that the appellant did not have the financial 
means to re turn to Kenya to visit her husband.  The panel also accepts that the p andemic has 
preven ted the appellant  from returning to Kenya.  The panel therefore finds that the appellant’s  
2020 CanLII 107040 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB9 -07287  
 
 
 
 
 
 failure to return to Kenya has been reasonably explained and this lack of tra vel to Kenya is 
insufficient to dete rmine that the marriage is not gen uine or that the p rimary purpose of  the 
marriage was for the applicant to obtain status in Canada.  
 
[9] The panel finds that the appellant has provided the applicant with financial support f or a 
period of time.  She testified that she sent the applicant money a period of approx imately one and 
a half years until the applicant found employment in Kenya.  The applicant provided a consistent 
response when asked about the financial support he rece ived from the appellant.  The panel finds 
that the financial support p rovided by the app ellant to the app licant is a positive indicator that 
their  marriage is genuine.   
 
[10]  The panel finds that the appellant and the applicant have shown detailed knowledge of  
each other commensurate with a genu ine marriage.  The applicant was a sked about the 
app ellant’s  employme nt.  Although he did not provide significant detail about her employment, 
the panel notes that his general description of her current employment was co nsistent with the 
work that she does .  In addition, he was able to des cribe her previous  employment.  The  
appellant on her part was also able to describe when the applicant obtained his current 
employment and the job that he now holds in Kenya.  The panel fin ds that the appellant and the 
applicant have  a level of knowledge a bout each other’s  lives that is co nsistent with individuals 
that are in a genuine marriage.    
 
[11]  The appellant and applicant also showed a significant level of knowledge about their 
respecti ve families.  In particular, the  applicant was able to explain why the appellant’s fa ther 
was not pre sent at the wedding.  His explanation that the appellant’s father had mental health 
issues was consistent with the explanation provided by the appellant.  The panel finds that this 
knowle dge of their respective families is  consistent with i ndividuals that are in a genuine 
marriage.  
 
2020 CanLII 107040 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB9 -07287  
 
 
 
 
 
 [12]  The Minister’s representative raised some concerns about a period of time where there 
was no record of communication between the  appellant and the applicant.  The panel finds that 
they have prov ided a reasonable explanation for this lack of documentary evidence about their 
ongoing communication.  The appellant explained that she lost her cell phone and that she was 
unable to retrie ve the communication between he r and the applicant when she obtain ed a new 
cell phon e.  The applican t provided a similar explanation for this.  The panel finds that this lack 
of documentary evidence of ongoing communication for a period of time has been re asonably 
explained and is insuf ficient to conclude that the marria ge is not genuine.  
 
[13]  The panel acce pts that there was an unexplained discrepancy in the evidence related to 
the applicant’s  driver’s  license .  The appellant and the applicant were questioned about this and 
the panel finds that they have not resolved this di screpancy in their  evidence.  The appellant 
stated that the appellant had not gone for his driving test yet while the applicant stated that he 
went for his test,  but he had not yet picked up his license .  Despite this dis crepancy in their 
evidence, the pan el finds that this  is not a materi al discrepancy .  The panel finds that this 
discrepancy is not sufficient for the panel to conclude that the marriage is not genuine.   
 
[14]  The applicant was asked if he intends on bringing h is family to Canada at some point i f 
he is allowed hi mself to come to  Canada.  He did indicate that he would like to bring his family 
to Canada but that he wants to settle his life with the appellant first.  The panel finds that the 
appellant and applicant  were consistent with respect to th eir future plans t ogether.  While the 
applicant wants to bring his family to Canada in the future, the panel finds that the primary 
purpose of his marriage to the appellant is to be with her in Canada and not to obtain pe rmanent 
resident status.   
 
[15]    The panel finds that ba sed on the evidence presented, the appellant and applicant have 
established on a balance of probabilities that their marriage is genuine and that the primary 
purpose of the marri age was not to obtain permanent resident status in Canada.   
2020 CanLII 107040 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB9 -07287  
 
 
 
 
 
  
[16]  The app eal is th erefore allowed.  
 
 
 
NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 The appeal is allowed.  The officer’s decision to refuse a permanent resident visa is set 
aside, and an officer must continue to process the application in accordance with the reasons of 
the Immigr ation Appe al Divis ion . 
 
 
 
(signed)  XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 XXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
September 24, 2 020  
 Date  
 
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you may make an application to the Federal 
Cou rt for judicial review of this  decision, with le ave of that Court.  Yo u may wish to get a dvice from counsel as soon as possible, 
since there are time limits for this application.  
 
 
 
2020 CanLII 107040 (CA IRB)

