 
 IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD (IMMIGRATION APPEAL DIVISION) 
 COMMISSION DE L’IMMIGRATION ET DU STATUT DE RÉFUGIÉ (SECTION D’APPEL DE L’IMMIGRATION)
 
 IAD File No./Dossier : 
TA6-05683   
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision 
 
Sponsorship 
   Appellant(s) Appelant(s) 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX AGBUYA  
   Respondent Intimé 
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration 
   Date(s) and Place Date(s) et Lieu de of Hearing l’audience 
February 6, 2007 
Toronto 
 Date of Decision Date de la Décision 
March 21, 2007  
 
 Panel Tribunal 
XXXXXXXXXXX  
  Appellant’s Counsel Conseil de l’appelant(s) 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
  Minister’s Counsel Conseil de l’intimé 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   
La Direction des services de révision et  de traduction de la CISR peut vous procurer les présents motifs de décisi on dans l’autre langue officielle. Vous n’avez qu’à en faire la demande par éc rit à l’adresse suivante : 344,  rue Slater, 14
e  étage, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0K1, par courriel à  translation.traduction@irb.gc.ca ou par télécopie au (613) 947-3213. You can obtain the translation of thes e reasons for decision in the other official language by writing to the Editing and Translation Services Directorate of the IRB, 344 Slater Street, 14th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K1, or by sending a request to  the following e-mail address: translation.traduction@irb.gc.ca or to facsimile number (613) 947-3213. 
2007 CanLII 51769 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. /Dossier : TA6-05683  1   
 Reasons and Decision 
[1] The appellant TeoXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is appealing from the refusal of the permanent resident visa application of his wife XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and her two minor daughters KXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the applicants), pursuant to section 63(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
1 (the Act). [2] In her refusal letter, the Visa Officer at th e Canadian Embassy in the Philippines indicated that she was of the opinion that the marriage of the appellant to the applicant was not genuine and had been entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or a privilege under the Act. [3] For his appeal to be allowed, the appellant mu st demonstrate that the applicants are not caught by the exclusionary provision of section 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
2 (the Regulations). [4] The appellant is 74 years old, the applicant is 45. She was married to his son XXXXX from November 1991 until his death in November 200 1. The appellant was widowed in May 2001. He has two daughters living in Canada, one son in the Philippines, and one son in Australia. The appellant married the applicant in the Philippines in a civil ceremony on January 19, 2004. They were in a religious ceremony in the Philippines on May 23, 2005. [5] The tribunal heard the testimony of the appellant. He chose not to have the applicant testify. [6] The financial assistance sent by the appellant  to his son XXXXX and his family in the Philippines prior to his death and since then has not been contested. As a matter of fact, he has been supporting them for many years before XXXXXXXX death, and his assistance has never been interrupted. There is nothing in the documentary evidence or in the appellant’s testimony to indicate that his supporting relationship towards th e applicant and her daughters has changed since his marriage to her. In the cards she has been sending to the appellant, the applicant calls him “Daddy”. He explained that his children call hi m Daddy and that she thinks of him as her 
                                                           
1  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. (2001), chap. 27. 
2  Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227, June 11, 2002, as amended. 
2007 CanLII 51769 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. /Dossier : TA6-05683  2   
 father-in-law. Indeed, this is what the re lationship is all about: during her interview on March 28, 2006, she indicated that she had wed the appellant for practical reasons and for the future of her children. [7] Having testified that he had courted the app licant after the death of his son, the appellant was asked to explain what he meant by this or how  he had gone about it. His answer was that he was her only support. Asked to explain how their relationship had developed between 2002 (when he had proposed) and 2004 (when he got married), again he replied that he was supporting her. Being the applicant’s support does not equate with a genuine marriage. The appellant also testified that after their civil marriage on January 19, 2 004, they had gone on a honeymoon. The religious ceremony took place on May 23, 2005, and again he testified that they had gone on a honeymoon. This is contradicted by the applicant who had indicated that there had been no honeymoon. It is worth pointing out that no photos of such honeym oons have been submitted into evidence. Another contradiction was left unexplained: the appellant  testified that he had proposed in 2002, the applicant had indicated 2003 during her interview (Appeal Record, at page 19) and 2004 on her application form (Appeal Record, at page 22). [8] The appellant testified that the applicant woul d find a job and work if she was allowed to enter Canada. Confronted with his earlier testimony that he wished her to be by his side to take care of him, he replied that his granddaughters – the applicant’s daughters – would take care of him. The tribunal doubts it, since they are of school age, 15 and 13 years old. It is clear that the applicant and her two children need assistance and th at once the appellant dies or retires from his part-time work given his age, they will no longer have such assistance. It is plausible to assume that the only way for the appellant to help them get into Canada and secure a better future was for him to marry the applicant. This is confirmed by the applicant’s question at the end of her interview (Appeal Record, at page 20), when sh e asked the officer what could be done for her children to go to Canada. [9] The appellant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that his relationship with the applicant was genuine or that it was not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or a privilege under the Act. 
2007 CanLII 51769 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. /Dossier : TA6-05683  3   
 Conclusion [10] The refusal is valid. [11] The applicants are caught by section 4 of the Regulations. [12] The appeal is dismissed.  
NOTICE OF DECISION 
 The appeal is dismissed.   XXXXXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXX 
 March 21, 2007  Date 
/jcbo  
 
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 a lawyer as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application. 
2007 CanLII 51769 (CA IRB)

