 
IAD.34 ( 03/14) 
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. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB5 -03589    
Client ID no. / No ID client :   5258 -5004  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP  
 
 
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
   
Respondent  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  
 Intimé (e) 
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  October 19, 2016  
November 14, 2016  
 Date (s) de l’audience  
   
   
Place of Hearing  Vancouver, BC  
 
 Lieu de l’audience  
   
Date of Decision  January 25, 2017  
 Date de la décision  
   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 Tribunal  
   
   
Counsel for the  
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Barrister and Soli citor  Conseil(s) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) / 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)  
   
  
  
Designated 
Representative (s) N/A  Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s ) 
 
 
   
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil du ministre  
   
2017 CanLII 18000 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI :  VB5 -03589  
 
 
 
 REASONS FOR DECISION  
 
[1] These are the reasons for the de cision in the appeal of XXXXXXXXXX  (the “appellant ”), who 
appeals the refusal to approve the permanent resident application made by his spouse, XXXXXXXXXXXX ( the “applicant ”). The sponsored application for a visa was refused because the visa 
officer found t he applicant to be inadmissible to Canada in that she did not meet the requirements 
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act ”).1  
 
ISSUE  
 
[2] At issue in this appeal is whether section 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection 
Regulations (the “ Regulations ”)2 applies, thereby excluding the applicant from consideration as a 
member of the family class.  
 
[3] Section 4(1) of the Regulations  has two tests . To succeed on appeal the appellant must 
prove , on a balance of probabilities , that the marriage  to the applicant was not entered into 
primarily for the purpose of acquiring status under the Act  and  that it is genuine. To dismiss the 
appeal the panel must find that the marriage was entered into primarily for the purpose of 
acquiring any status or pri vilege under the Act  or that is not genuine.  
 
DECISION  
 
[4] I have come to the conclusion that the appellant has not established that section 4(1) of 
the Regulations does not apply. The appeal is dismissed for the following reasons.  
 
BACKGROUND  
 
[5] The appellant  is 34 years of age. The applicant is 34 years of age and lives in China. This 
is the first marriage for the appellant and the second for the applicant.   
                                                                 
1 Immigration and Refugee Protecti on Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27.  
2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2010 -208, s. 1.  
2017 CanLII 18000 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB5 -03589  
 
 
 
 
 ANALYSIS  
 
[6] The visa offi cer interviewed the applicant. Among the concerns the visa officer addressed 
at the interview, as shown in the interview notes and in the letter of refusal of November 12, 
2015 were the following:  
 The genesis of the relationship ; 
 The applicant’s previous marriage of convenience ; and,  
 The credibility of the applicant .  
 
[7] The genuinene ss of a marriage can be affected by a number of different factors which can 
vary from appeal to appeal. They can include but are not limited to such factors as:  
 Compatibility ; 
 Development of the relationship ; 
 Communication between the appellant and applica nt; 
 Knowledge of each other ; 
 Visits by the appellant to see the applicant ; 
 Existence of family of applicant in Canada ; and,  
 Birth of a child . 
 
[8] The other test – whether the relationship was entered into primarily for the purpose of 
acquiring any status or p rivilege under the Act  – is self -explanatory. The advantage sought in 
spousal appeals is generally entry to Canada and the granting to the applicant of permanent 
resident status as a member of the family class.  
 
[9] I find that the evidence given orally under affirmation by the appellant and the applicant 
was unsatisfactory, vague and contained several inconsiste ncies which were not resolved. I have 
little confidence in their reliability and do not consider their evidence to be credible or 
trustworthy evidence.   
 
2017 CanLII 18000 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB5 -03589  
 
 
 
 
 [10]  The appellant and applicant are compatible in terms of age, lingui stic, and cultural 
background. They are less compatible in terms of prior marital status.  
 
[11]  The applicant’s testimony at the hearing was not consistent with her testimony at a 
previous RPD  proceeding on June 22, 2010.3 At the RPD proceeding the appellant provided a 
testimony about first coming to Canada in 2008 secondary to fear as a Falun Gong practitioner . 
The applicant made no mention of her marriage to her firs t spouse in Canada. She ma de no 
reference to her marriage to the appellant i n Canada on December 20, 2009. The applicant  did 
not adequately explain, other than to essentially blame the advice given to her by a consultant, 
her provision of the false testimony at the RPD hearing.  
 
[12]  Similarly, the applicant did not adequately explain her remaining in Canada after the 
expiry of her student visa, her unauthorized employment, or the circumstances of her first 
marriage, other than as attempts to remain in Canada.  The applicant also did not adequately 
explain her failure to disclose her name change prior to filing her second refugee claim.  
 
[13]  The appellant and applicant provide a history of meeting in 2005 and having a 
relationship  that then ended. The appellant provided documentary evidence of  ongoing 
com munication with the applicant. In a chat record dated December 24, 2007,4 the appellant 
references the applicant’s pregnancy and  his reaction to it. There was no mention in the 
application materials of a pregnancy nor was this adequate ly addres sed in the testimony. Given 
that the applicant was married to her first spouse from September 2006 until November 2009 
there was no adequate explanation provided for this omission.  
 
[14]  The appellant did not become a permanent resident  of Canada until June 8, 2009. Given 
that he was not a permanent resident, he would not have been able  to sponsor the applica nt to 
Canada if they married earlier . The appellant and applicant did not adequately explain the 
applicant’s  continuation of her second refugee claim after their marriage nor why there had been 
                                                                 
3 Exhibit R1 .   
4 Exhibit A2, p. 1031 . 
2017 CanLII 18000 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB5 -03589  
 
 
 
 
 a delay until after the appellant became a permanent resident before they were married given 
their reported relationship from 2005.   
 
[15]  Counsel for the appellant submitted, in essence, that the appellant and applicant a re 
compatible and that the development of the relationship f ollowed a logical progression. Counsel 
submitted that the multiple marriage ceremonies, periods of cohabitation, and visits by the 
appellant to see the applicant supported the existence of a genui ne relationship, as did the bi rth of 
their daughter in 2014. Counsel pointed to the letters of support from the families wa s a further 
favourable factor. Counsel argued that the applicant had adequately explained her prior refugee 
claims and that her past immigration history should not nega tively affect her credibility. Counsel 
submitted the marriage is genuine and was not entered into primarily so the applicant could gain 
status in Canada.  Counsel provided various case law to sup port the appellant’s positi on. I find 
that these cases revolved around the  particular facts within them. I find they are of little 
assistance in the present case as I find the appellant and applicant are not credible.  
 
[16]  I find that the appellant has not met his onus to establish , on a balance of probabilities , 
that the marriage was not entered into prima rily for immigration purposes. I find that the 
credibility of the applicant relates to both her testimony at the hearing and to her actions and 
statements with respe ct to her immigrati on history. The applicant’s actions at that time are 
singularly relevant to consideration of primary purpose which deals with the m arriage at the time 
it occurred,  namely December 2009.  
 
[17]  I do not accept that the applicant was essentially an innocent who h ad no option but to 
follow the poor advice of her consultant. The applicant’s actions in remaining in Canada after 
being given a voluntary departure order in 2006, her filing of the two refugee claims, her first 
marriage, which was clearly not genuine, and  her outright false testimony and documentation at 
the time of her refugee hearing on June 22, 20105 all demonstrate that the applicant has little 
hesitation to deceive in order to gain status in Canada.   
 
                                                                 
5 Exhibit R1.  
2017 CanLII 18000 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB5 -03589  
 
 
 
 
 [18]  I acknowledge the appellant a nd applicant now hav e a child. However, the existence of a 
child i s not in itself determinative. In this case I find that at the time it was entered into the 
primary purpose of the marriage was for immigration and the birth of a child several years later 
does not change the p urpose at the time.  
 
[19]  I find that the primary purpose of the marriage was to enable  the applicant to gain status  
in Canada. I find that the weight of the evidence supports that this was simply another back up 
plan to allow the applicant to remain in Canada should her second f alse refugee claim be refused. 
I find that the applicant’s first marriage was to serve a similar purpose, despite it  not coming to 
fruition. I find that the appellant and applicant are not credible or reliable.  
 
[20]  This lack of credibility on significant issues causes me to give less weight to the 
consistent areas of testimony demonstrated on direct examination and to the documentary 
evidence.  The appellant has not met his onus to establish , on the balance of probabilities , that the 
marriage  is genuine and not entered into for immigration purposes.  
 
CONCLUSION  
 
[21]  I conclude that the appe llant has not shown that his  marriage to the applicant is a genuine 
one, or was not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under 
the Act . The appeal is dismissed.  
 
 
 
2017 CanLII 18000 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB5 -03589  
 
 
 
 
 NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 The appeal is dismissed . 
 
 
 
(signed)  "XXXXXXXXXXXXXX"  
 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
January 25, 2017  
 Date  
 
 
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you m ay 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, sin ce there are time limits  
for this application.  
 
 
2017 CanLII 18000 (CA IRB)

