 
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.34 .01 (March 13, 2014 ) 
Available in French  
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la S AI :  MB3 -00839  
Client ID No. / No ID client :  2036 -6036  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP APPEAL  
 
Appellant(s)  MoXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
   
Respondent  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  Intimé(e)  
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  June  30, 2014  Date(s) de l’audience  
   
   
Place of Hearing  Montréal, Québec  Lieu de l’audience  
   
Date of Decision  June 30, 2014  
Signature of Reasons: July  2, 2014  
 Date de la décision  
   
Panel  Me MaXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
Counsel for the  
Appellant(s)  N/A  Conseil(s) de 
l’appelant(e) / des 
appelant(e)(s)  
   
   
Designated 
Representative(s)  N/A  Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
 
   
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil du ministre  
2014 CanLII 94394 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la S AI :  MB3 -00839  
 
1  
ORAL REASONS FOR DECISION  
 
[1] These are the reasons in support of the decision concerning the appeal of MohammXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXthe appellant), pursuant to subsection 63( 1) of the Immigration and Refugee 
Protection Act1 (the Act ), following the refusal to grant a permanent resident visa in the family 
class to his wife  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  (the applicant).  
 
[1] The reasons for the refusal are found in the refusal letter2 and in the Computer Assisted 
Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes.3 The immigration officer came to the conclusion 
that the sponsor, the appellant in this case, had not demonstrated that he intended to reside  in 
Canada when his wife became a permanent resident. The refusal was based on subsection 13 0(2)  
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations4 (the Regulations ). 
 
[2] The appellant was present at the hearing. The tribunal also heard the testimony of one of 
his son, XXXXXX , and also heard the testimony of the appellant’s employer, the owner of the 
restaurant where he works. Following the testimonies heard, the Minister’s  counsel made a 
favorable recommendation to allow the appeal in this case.  
 
[3] The issue in this case was whether the appellant will reside in Canada once the app licant  
becomes a permanent resident of Canada, as required by subsection 13 0(2)  of the Regulati ons.  
 
[4] It was clarified at the beginning of the hearing that the genuineness of the marriage 
between the appellant and the applicant was not at issue. As indicated in the CAIPS notes, the 
immigration officer was satisfied that this was a genuine marriage and the m inister’s counsel also 
                                                 
1  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. (2001), chap. 27 , as amended . 
2  Appeal Record, p ages 6-7.  
3  Appeal Record, pages 31 -33. 
4    SOR/2002 -227.  
2014 CanLII 94394 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la S AI :  MB3 -00839  
 
2 indicated, at the beginning of the hearing, that she was satisfied with the genuineness of the 
marriage.  
 
[5] Prior to the refusal, the immigration officer did not conduct an interview  and rendered a 
decision based on the documentation p rovided by the appellant and the applicant. The 
immigration officer had important concerns with respect to some of the documents that were 
submitted. Also , at the time the immigration officer reviewed the file, the appellant was not 
living in Canada. There  were  a number of issues that led the immigration officer to conclude that 
he was not going to comply with subsection  130(2) of the Regulation s.  
 
[6] The tribunal has reviewed the documents submitted as well as the testimonies heard and 
finds that the appella nt has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that he meets the 
requirements  of subsection 13 0(2) of the Regulation s and the appeal is allowed for the reasons 
that will follow.  
 
[7] The appellant is 58 years old. He became a permanent resident of Canada and a  
Canadian citizen in 1978.  Following this , he returned to Pakistan to live. An i mportant  issue that 
was raised during this hearing was the delay that it took the appellant to sponsor his wife and the 
delay he took  in returning to Canada to live. The  appellant explained that he was in Canada in 
the 1970s. He studied and then returned to Pakistan to live. He got married  and ha s three  
children  with the applicant . He has three children aged 10, 20 and 26 years old. They are all 
Canadian citizens. He exp lained that there was no need for him to return to Canada and live as he 
was living a decent life in Pakistan. He had a very good job. His children went to a good school. 
However, in May  2011, there was a robbery at his home and the family plan began to ch ange at 
that time because this security situation in their area and in Pakistan was not very good . H e and 
his wife made the decision that they would live in Canada.  
 
[8] The appellant did submit the documents with respect to the robbery. He submitted a 
police  report that was entered as Exhibit A -1. There is also a mention in the Appeal Record in 
the documents signed by his wife that there ha d been such a robbery at their home  which appears 
at page 53 of the Appeal Record.  It is possible to see that the lock -in date of the application is 
2014 CanLII 94394 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la S AI :  MB3 -00839  
 
3 the 28th of June 2011. We also see that the sponsorship application form  was signed in  June of 
2011. So the explanation with respect the robbery which led the appellant  and the applicant to 
decide to come live in Canada i s corroborated with respect with the sequence of events, as a 
month later they were already filing out the sponsorship application.  
 
[9] The appellant did not return to Canada right away. The appellant only returned to Canada 
on June 12th, 2013. The appellant had to demonstrate at this hearing that he would live in Canada 
once his wife would obtain permanent resident status.  The appellant has been living in Canada 
for a little over  one year. He testified that he resigned from his job in Pakistan on June 10th, 
2013, and returned to Canada on June 12th, 2013. It is possible to note the appellant’s entry in 
Canada on June 12th, 2013 in Exhibit R -1, which is the traveler passage report submitted by the 
minister’s counsel. The tribunal also had the opportunity to se e the appellant’s original passport s 
and this can also be seen in one of the appellant’s passport.  
 
[10]  With respect to what he has been doing since June 2013, the appellant lived with his 
brother for several months and held employment at one company in Montré al from July 2013 
until January 2014. He testified that in March 2014, he decided to move to Toronto because he 
was experiencing language difficult ies here in Québec  mostly related to finding employment.   
 
[11]  His son XXXXX  was living in Canada as of 2011 . He  did returned to Pakistan  and has been 
living permanently in Canada since August 2013 . His son XXXXX also came to live in Canada 
since May 16th, 2014 . The appellant and his two sons are now living together in Toronto and that 
is where they plan on staying, according to the appellant’s testimony.  
 
[12]  In Toronto , the appellant testified that he is renting an apartment. He signed a lease on 
June  1st, 2014, as per Exhibit A -5.  Before June 1st, 2014, he was living at his nephew’s house in 
the Toronto  area. The appellant had many relatives in Canada ; he has a nephew and a niece that 
live in the Toronto area. He was living with the nephew until he moved with his sons into their 
own apartment on the 1st of June 2014.   
 
2014 CanLII 94394 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la S AI :  MB3 -00839  
 
4 [13]  The appellant also bought a car in  March 2014. He submitted the car registration which 
was entered as Exhibit A -6 as well as the permit and plate certificate with respect to the purchase 
of this car.   
 
[14]  The appellant also testified that he was hired in a restaurant in the beginning of 
June  2014. Although the appellant did not submit a letter from the employer stating that he has 
been working full -time as an assistant manager in this restaurant, the tribunal had the opportunity 
to hear the owner of the restaurant. I will add as well that thi s witness was not announced and the 
appellant requested they the tribunal call him. The testimony of the employer was s pontaneous 
and his testimony corroborated the appellant’s testimony. The appellant is hired as an assista nt 
manager. He works full -time. The employer  testified that he plans on keeping the appellant  as an 
employee .  
 
[15]  The appellant also has a  bank account in Canada. He has renewed his driver’s license and 
medicare card in Ontario.  
 
[16]  With respect to Pakistan , the appellant has a few relatives  still living there. His wife and 
his youngest son  are there at the moment . He also has o ne brother and one sister  in Pakistan. T he 
appellant testified that he only has the family home that is left in Pakistan, which is reasonable 
because his wife does not  have her permanent resident visa to come to Canada yet. She is living 
there right now with their youngest son and the appellant’s brother. Apart from that, the 
appellant  sold his car in April 2014. As mentioned, he resigned from his job in Pakistan in Jun e 
2013.  
 
[17]  With respect to Canada, the appellant has many relatives living in Canada. He has his two 
sons that are living with him. He also has one sister and three brothers and their families that are 
living mostly in the Montreal area and has mentioned a niece and a nephew in the Toronto area. 
He testified that he has approximately 25 relat ives living between Montreal and Toronto.  
 
[18]  So there are many elements that demonstrate that the appellant is living in Canada that he 
will continue to live in Canada. He has demonstrated that he is living in Canada, that he has 
2014 CanLII 94394 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la S AI :  MB3 -00839  
 
5 important connections to Ca nada. H e has  also  not returned to Pakistan since he came to Canada 
to live on June 2013. We did see entries into Canada after this date as per exhibit R -1 but as 
explained by the appellant , it was to go to New  Yor k as his son XXXXX ’s fiancé is in New York .  
There are no stamps in the original passport  that indicate that the appellant returned to Pakistan.  
 
[19]  The tribunal finds that there are many elements that have been brought forward that do 
demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities , that the appellant int ends to live in Canada once his 
wife receives permanent resident status.  Clearly , the family wants to be reunited in Canada as 
the appellant is living here with two of his sons.   
 
[20]  For all these reasons, the tribunal allows the appeal.  
 
 
 
NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 
The  appeal is allowed.   
   
 (sign ed) MaXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  Me MaXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  July 2 , 2014  
  Date  
 
/jp/mcp  
 
 
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, sinc e there are time limits 
for this application.  
 
 
2014 CanLII 94394 (CA IRB)

