Federal Court Rules Immigration Decision Unreasonable

Date: 20260612 Docket: IMM-3541-25 Citation: 2026 FC 790 Toronto, Ontario, June 12, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Thorne BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of an [NAME] [[NAME]] officer’s [Officer] decision, dated February 3, 2025 , refusing the Applicant’s permanent residence application submitted under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada class. The Officer essentially found that they were not satisfied the Applicant’s relationship was genuine and had not been entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring immigration status. As a result, the Applicant was held not to qualify as a member of the family class and was excluded for permanent residence sponsorship pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the [NAME] , SOR/2002-227 [Regulations]. [ 2 ] The Applicant alleges that the [NAME] decision [Decision] is unreasonable because the Officer erred by illegitimately disregarding certain evidence based on its provenance, making a series of implausibility findings, ignoring evidence that demonstrated precisely what the Officer claimed was required and had stated was missing, and also engaging in a series of veiled credibility findings. As a result, they contend that the Decision is neither intelligible nor justifiable. They also assert that the Decision is procedurally unfair, given veiled credibility findings that the Applicant was not provided an opportunity to respond to. [ 3 ] For the following reasons, this application is granted. I find the Decision to be unreasonable.

II. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant, who is a citizen of Vietnam, entered Canada in 2016. He did so on a study permit to attend high school and join his older sister who was already a student in Canada. Subsequent study permits were issued to him, the last of which expired on December 3, 2021, after which the Applicant was without legal status. [ 5 ] In April 2023, the Applicant began dating the person who would become his [NAME] [[NAME]]. On October 20, 2023, they became engaged and they subsequently married on November 5, 2023. The couple moved in together on that date, living in the home of a family friend of the Applicant. [ 6 ] Ms. [NAME] sponsored the Applicant, and on June 14, 2024, [NAME] received his permanent residence application under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class [Application]. The [NAME] subsequently referred the Application for review of the relationship’s bona fides . A Procedural Fairness Letter [PFL], dated December 24, 2024, was sent to the Applicant. This letter set out the Officer’s concern that there was minimal documentation proving a genuine relationship and cohabitation. With the assistance of counsel, the Applicant provided a response, including documents, a Joint Affidavit and a submissions letter. [ 7 ] By letter dated February 3, 2025, the Application was refused, as the Officer concluded that the Applicant had not satisfied them that the relationship was genuine and not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any immigration status or privilege under the Act, pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the Regulations. This provision provides that a [NAME] shall not be considered a spouse, common-law partner, or conjugal partner of a person if the union: (a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the [NAME] Act , SC 2001, c 27 [Act], or (b) is not genuine. [ 8 ] The reasons for the Decision referenced the documents submitted by the Applicant in his Application and response to the PFL, and identified the following issues: Auto Insurance Document: No weight was given to the auto insurance document as it did not list policy information nor the [NAME]’s name. Letters of Support: Little weight was given to these letters, as the Decision stated they were provided by individuals “that are biased towards the individuals such as [NAME]. They provided little evidence of proof of a genuine relationship.” Landlord’s Letter: Little weight was also given to a landlord’s letter confirming the couple have been living there together since November 2023. The Officer noted that no government ID was provided with the letter. [ 9 ] In relation to the photos submitted with the Application, the Officer noted that no photos had been submitted “that show any sort of affection such as hand holding and kissing” . They further stated that in the wedding photos guests were dressed casually, “everyone in attendance is of Asian descent” and neither the Applicant nor the [NAME] were wearing wedding rings. The Officer also noted that “it appears there are [only] two people from SPR [[NAME]] side that appear in two of the photos.” [ 10 ] Other concerns identified by the Officer included issues relating to the couple’s: Mailing Address: The mailing address on the Marriage Certificate was an address not on any of the Applicant or [NAME]’s documents. The 2023 Notice of Assessment also listed an address different from the one the [NAME] shared with the Applicant. Joint Bank Account: No official letter from a bank showing a joint account was provided. Instead, a screenshot of their joint bank account and a statement showing minimal transactions, a low balance and no essential household spending, was provided. The Officer assigned little weight to these statements. Bank Statements: Bank statements from the Applicant and the [NAME] show large deposits without explanation or origin, also with home branches at different banks which were in different locations. The Officer assigned no weight to these documents and noted that there were no essential transactions to show financial ties or interdependence. Credit Card Statements: Credit card statements of the [NAME] showed some transactions in 2024 charged in an area an hour’s drive from where she is living with the Applicant. Text Messages: The screenshots of text messages indicated that there were not very many text messages between the couple. [ 11 ] The Officer summarized their findings, noting the couple lacked household bills, a lease including utilities, or things such as joint life and auto insurance. They concluded there was not adequate proof of cohabitation and held that the Applicant’s supporting documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that they are in a genuine relationship not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Act. [ 12 ] On February 14, 2025, the Applicant filed for judicial review of the Decision.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 13 ] The issues in this matter are whether the Decision is reasonable and procedurally fair. [ 14 ] In respect of the former issue, the role of a court in reviewing a decision of an administrative decision maker is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” and is “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” : Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [ Vavilov ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at para 64. Although the party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable, the reviewing court must assess “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency and intelligibility” : Vavilov at paras 99 and 100. [ 15 ] On the question of procedural fairness, such issues are reviewed on a correctness standard, or at least a standard akin to correctness: [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54 – 56 [ [COMPANY] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1029 at para 41. This requires the Court to analyze whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 936 at para 13 citing, [COMPANY] at para 54. The reviewing court thus determines whether the applicant “knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” : [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FCA 97 at para 5 citing [COMPANY] at para 56.

IV. Legal Framework [ 16 ] The relevant legal provision in this matter is found in section 4 of the Regulations: [NAME] , SOR/2002-227 Règlement sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés , DORS/2002-227 Bad faith Mauvaise foi 4 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a [NAME] shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership 4 (1) Pour l’application du présent règlement, l’étranger n’est pas considéré comme étant l’époux, le conjoint de fait ou le partenaire conjugal d’une personne si le mariage ou la relation des conjoints de fait ou des partenaires conjugaux, selon le cas : (a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; or a) visait principalement l’acquisition d’un statut ou d’un privilège sous le régime de la Loi; (b) is not genuine. b) n’est pas authentique. [ 17 ] My colleague Justice Gascon, in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1067 [ [NAME] ] at para 17, explained that both requirements must be met: The test for genuineness of marriage under subsection 4(1) of the [NAME] , SOR/2002-227 requires an assessment of whether the marriage was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the IRPA, as well as whether the marriage is genuine ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) ,   2019 FC 1068   [ [NAME] ] at para 36). The test is disjunctive, meaning that “either circumstance suffices to disqualify an applicant” ( [NAME] at para 27). In other words, an applicant must demonstrate both that the marriage was not entered into primarily for an immigration purpose and that the relationship is genuine ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 22 at para 12). [Emphasis in original.] [ 18 ] While the two criteria are distinct, the same facts can be relevant for both: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 252 at para 10. It is also understood that significant deference is to be extended to immigration officers who assess the bona fides of a marriage: [NAME] at para 26.

V. Analysis A. The Decision is unreasonable [ 19 ] For the following reasons, I find the Decision to be unreasonable. I therefore grant the application for judicial review and return the Decision to [NAME] for redetermination. [ 20 ] At the outset, I note that the Applicant made a variety of compelling submissions in arguing both that the Decision was unreasonable, and that it was procedurally unfair. However, as I have found that the Decision was clearly not reasonable for the reasons that follow, I confine my analysis to that issue and need not address the procedural fairness submissions. (1) Submissions of the parties [ 21 ] The Applicant argues the Decision was unreasonable, submitting first that the Officer erred by dismissing both the Applicant’s letters of support from [NAME] and family as well as their landlord’s letter solely due to the source of those documents. He notes the Officer termed these letters as “biased” and afforded them little weight, but argues that in dismissing this evidence, the Officer did not engage with the substance of these letters. The Applicant asserts this is unreasonable because in spousal sponsorships, in particular, [NAME] and family are those best placed to provide evidence as to the relationship under review: citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 380 at para 11; see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 24 at para 4. Similarly, they contend that the Officer dismissed the credibility of the couple’s proof of cohabitation, due solely to the landlord being a family friend of the Applicant, and that no further reasoning was provided as to this. [ 22 ] Secondly, the Applicant argues that many of the Officer’s conclusions stem from a misapprehension or outright disregard of the evidence, and that the Officer also relied on unreasonable plausibility findings. The Applicant contends that the Officer misapprehended or unreasonably disregarded evidence while failing to consider the context of the situation or explaining why their findings were appropriate in this context. He asserts that evidence and explanations which specifically addressed the Officer’s identified concerns were disregarded with respect to issues such as the lack of a formal lease, addresses on documents submitted, the bank statements, and credit card transactions. [ 23 ] The Applicant further submits that the Officer’s analysis of their photographic evidence was extremely problematic, noting that the Officer declared the photos did not show obvious affection such as the couple holding hands or kissing, despite there being photos which do show exactly this. He also notes that the Officer’s reliance on their own subjective notion of affection would have been problematic, even if the Officer had properly reviewed the photos. The Applicant submits the Officer’s observations that their wedding guests were dressed informally is an exaggeration, as the photos show a mix of dress among guests, and that the significance of the Officer pointing out “everyone in attendance is of Asian descent” was also not clear. The Applicant argues the Officer’s concerns with respect to the photos essentially go to an unspoken implication that the photos were staged, and that the Officer was, in reality, making a veiled credibility assessment that they did not overtly voice and allow the Applicant to address. [ 24 ] In sum, the Applicant argues that the Decision is replete with such veiled credibility findings, along with often unspoken plausibility findings and that the Officer’s holdings fundamentally lack explanation and fail to address countervailing evidence and explanations. [ 25 ] The Respondent, for its part, asserts that the Applicant simply disagrees with the weight the Officer afforded the evidence and seeks an assessment in their favour. They contend that the Officer did not dismiss the letters solely due to their origin but rather for their failure to provide sufficient proof of a genuine relationship. They further argue that the Applicant misconstrues the Officer’s consideration of the evidence as veiled credibility findings, stating that rather the Applicant did not meet their evidentiary onus. They state that while the Officer made comments about the photos, this was not the basis of the Decision, that the evidence the Officer dismissed was not key to the Decision, and that the arguments of the Applicant do not correspond to the central decision points, but rather only concern peripheral issues. The Respondent asserts that ultimately the Officer determined that the evidence provided was not sufficient to establish the level of interdependence that would be expected after a year and a half of marriage, and rather that evidence such as that pertaining to the couple’s lack of shared auto insurance or interdependency as indicated in the 2023 Notice of Assessment, were properly the key evidentiary concerns. (2) Analysis [ 26 ] Upon review of the record, I have little difficulty in determining the Decision to be unreasonable. [ 27 ] First, I agree with the Applicant that the Officer appears to have functionally disregarded certain of their submitted evidence, specifically the testimonial letters from their [NAME], family and landlord, solely due to the provenance of these documents. With respect to these items, the Officer’s rationale was that: I have read the letters of support, I do not give these a lot of weight as they are provided by individuals that are biased toward the individuals such as [NAME]. They provided little evidence of proof of a genuine relationship. Therefore, I do not give them much weight. […] No joint lease was provided, only a letter from their landlord stating that [NAME] have been living together at their address since November 2023. [NAME] indicated that they do not pay rent, or pay any sort of utilities bill and that they live there for free. No government ID was provided with the letter. It is to be expected that a joint lease should have been provided when they first moved into this address. I give little weight to this document as the landlord is [NAME] family friend . [Emphasis added.] [ 28 ] From these passages, it is evident that the substance of those letters was not engaged with or considered by the Officer, but rather that the letters were given little weight merely because of who had provided them to the Applicant, and the Officer’s belief that such parties were inappropriately “biased” toward the Applicant. Recent jurisprudence has found it unreasonable for a decision maker to dismiss evidence for the sole reason of its provenance: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 975 [ [NAME] ] at para 9; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 1318 at para 17. In [NAME] , for example, the Court found it unreasonable for the Officer to give little weight to a letter from that applicant’s cousin, because “it is self-serving coming from a family member” (at para 9). I also do not find persuasive the Respondent’s assertion that the Officer did not disregard the letters due to their provenance, but rather as the letters provided little evidence of proof of a genuine relationship. The Officer provides no indication of why they determined this to be the case, and in no way engages with the fact that the letters do appear to provide testimonials as to the genuineness of the relationship, if not in an overly detailed manner. [ 29 ] Second, the Officer’s assessment of the photographic evidence is indeed problematic. The Officer took issue with the photos, in part stating that they did not show overt affection between the couple, such as kissing or hand holding. Putting aside the appropriateness of the Officer’s apparent requirement that the photos must depict a requisite, nebulous level of affection which would correspond to the subjective view of the Officer, I note that certain of the photos submitted did directly depict hand holding and kissing. This finding in the Decision is therefore simply not responsive to the evidence provided, and I find it to be unintelligible. [ 30 ] Beyond this, I must also agree with the Applicant that the implication of the Officer’s various critiques of the photos (that they did not show affection, that certain wedding guests were casually dressed, that most of the wedding guests were “of Asian descent” and that the [NAME] only appeared to have two guests at the wedding – though, frankly, it is not clear how the Officer was able to determine this last point from the pictures at all) is that the photos were ingenuine and staged. In oral argument, the Respondent struggled to explain or justify the Officer’s findings in relation to the photographs. Though initially claiming that the Officer had made no errors in relation to the photos, counsel eventually conceded that the photos directly showed the acts of affection that the Officer had asserted was absent. Counsel later stated that, with respect to the other points about the photos, the Officer had ‘just been making comments’ about the pictures, and that no one could be sure what they were alluding to in those comments, but that no implication had been raised as to the legitimacy of the photos. Again, I do not find this persuasive. [ 31 ] While counsel contended that the Officer’s comments were not intended to bring the legitimacy of the photos into question, they had no explanation for why else the Officer would have chosen to make that series of observations. I do not accept that the Officer was merely randomly commenting on those aspects of the photographs, and that he had done so for no purpose – though I note that even if this had been so, that lack of transparency and intelligibility would itself call into question the reasonableness of the Decision. In my view, the implication of the Officer’s ‘comments’ about the photographs is clear: that they were suspect and, indeed, indicia that the photos had been staged in furtherance of a fraudulent application. This constitutes a veiled credibility finding, for which I would likely find a procedural fairness violation were it necessary to also proceed to that analysis in my decision. [ 32 ] It is not necessary to do so however, as the Decision makes clear that, on many fronts, the Officer simply failed to address or reckon with evidence and submissions of the Applicant which clearly ran counter to the eventual findings in the Decision.

Accordingly, there is an obvious disconnect between certain findings of the Officer and the evidence in the record, for which no explanation has been provided. In light of this, I cannot find there to be a rational chain of analysis in relation to these findings. [ 33 ] Finally, I note the Respondent’s submissions that, essentially, any issues with the Decision, including all of those highlighted by the Applicant (such as in relation to the photos, the acontextual credit card charges analysis, the failure to account for the Applicant’s explanations and evidence), concerned peripheral matters on which the Decision did not turn, and that rather the Officer was simply not satisfied that the Applicant had provided sufficient documentation showing cohabitation and an appropriate level of comingling of the couple’s affairs. The Respondent asserted that, therefore, it was evidence such as the 2023 Notice of Assessment and the couple’s lack of joint auto insurance which was pertinent, and which the Court should focus upon. [ 34 ] I would agree that had the Officer, in any way, identified or even alluded to such a delineation of the evidence considered, this might indeed have supported the Respondent’s interpretation of what the key decision points the Officer had relied on had been. In lieu of this however, I must refuse the Respondent’s invitation to speculate as to the reasoning underlying the Officer’s conclusions. The Respondent has essentially classified various issues identified by the Officer (and challenged by the Applicant) as peripheral, while declaring that the Decision rather turned on other issues that the Respondent identifies. The Decision says nothing of the sort, and it is curious to assert that matters such as witness testimonials as to the legitimacy of the union, for example, should be viewed as peripheral. [ 35 ] I agree with the Applicant that it is certainly possible to hew to an interpretation of the Decision that would retroactively render it reasonable, and that the Respondent has done just this, while asking the Court to ignore the other evident problems in the decision. However, the reasoning of the Officer cannot be buttressed in this fashion, after the fact, by speculating about a potential line of analysis or claiming that in the reasons there was a focus by the Officer on only certain evidentiary issues that is not apparent in the Decision itself: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1679 at paras 21–23; [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2022 FC 1469 at para 20; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 568 at para 19 ; [NAME] Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 754 at para 6; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1637 at para 4. The jurisprudence is clear that reasonableness review does not permit this Court to entertain supplemental reasons beyond those issued in the decision under review: [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2020 FC 444 at para 28 (citations omitted); [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 FCA 157 at paras 8 and 15, citing Vavilov at para 97. [ 36 ] In sum, the errors identified above are sufficient for this Court to “lose confidence” in the outcome reached: Vavilov at para 106 and 122; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 SCC 21 at para 51. I do not find the Decision to be transparent, intelligible and justifiable. It is unreasonable.

VI. Conclusion [ 37 ] For these reasons, this application for judicial review is granted, and the Decision is set aside. The matter is returned for redetermination by a different [NAME]. [ 38 ] The parties have not proposed any question for certification under paragraph 74(d) of the Act, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3541-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review application is granted. The decision of the Officer dated February 3, 2025, is set aside and the matter is returned for redetermination by a different immigration officer. Prior to the redetermination, the Applicant shall be given an opportunity to provide updated submissions and documentation in support of their application. No question of general importance is certified. "Darren R. Thorne" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-3541-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 4, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: THORNE j. DATED: JUNE 12, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY], Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent