Federal Court Upholds Denial of Permanent Residence Application

Date: 20260615 Docket: IMM-13778-23 Citation: 2026 FC 799 Toronto, Ontario, June 15, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, was included in her spouse’s application for permanent residence in Canada under the [NAME]. In August 2023, an immigration officer [Officer] denied the Applicant’s permanent residence application because they were not satisfied that there was a genuine ongoing spousal relationship between the Applicant and her spouse, as required by paragraph 4(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [ IRPR ]. [ 2 ] In this judicial review application, the Applicant challenges the Officer’s decision on the grounds of procedural fairness and reasonableness. For the following reasons, the Applicant has failed to establish any reviewable errors, and I am dismissing the application.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant’s spouse, who had been living in Canada since 2016, was granted permanent residence in September 2020. However, to process the Applicant’s application, evidence was requested demonstrating a genuine spousal relationship between the Applicant and her spouse: Letter dated March 9, 2023, Certified Tribunal Record [[NAME]] at 60. [ 4 ] The Applicant responded to this request by submitting their marriage certificate, photographs of the marriage and of the family spending time together, proof of financial support in the form of payment receipts, and screenshots demonstrating ongoing communication, including WhatsApp voice notes and text messages: [NAME] at 150–202. [ 5 ] A procedural fairness letter was sent to the Applicant in May 2023, advising that she had “provided insufficient evidence demonstrating that an ongoing, genuine relationship exists” . In particular, the letter stated “available information” indicated that the Applicant and her spouse had “grown apart” since 2016, and that he had “entered into relationships with other people” since then. The Applicant was given an opportunity to “submit additional information relating to this issue” : Letter dated May 23, 2023, [NAME] at 40–41. [ 6 ] The Applicant responded, submitting affidavits from herself, her spouse, [NAME], and [NAME]: [NAME] at 83–104. None of this evidence, however, addressed the concerns expressed about the Applicant’s spouse’s other relationships. [ 7 ] In August 2023, the Officer refused the Applicant’s permanent residence application. The Officer explained that the Applicant had been advised of their concerns by letter dated May 23, 2023, but that she was unable to satisfy them that their concerns were unfounded: Letter dated August 16, 2023, [NAME] at 43–44. The [NAME] [[NAME]] notes further point out that the Applicant “did not directly address the [Officer’s] concern” about other relationships: [NAME] notes dated August 16, 2023, [NAME] at 3.

III. Analysis A. The relevant legislation [ 8 ] In accordance with subsection 4(1) of the IRPR , a foreign national will not be considered a spouse if the marriage was not genuine, or was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27: 4 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a 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 [ 9 ] As the test is disjunctive, a finding either that the marriage was entered into primarily to acquire status or that it is not genuine will disqualify an applicant from permanent residence: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 375 at para 24 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 68 at para 9; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 840 at para 10. [ 10 ] The onus is on an applicant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they are not excluded under either paragraph 4(a) or (b) of the IRPR . Furthermore, it is a highly fact-driven assessment to which the Court owes deference: [NAME] at para 25; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1273 at para 23. B. No breaches of procedural fairness established [ 11 ] Where breaches of procedural fairness are alleged, no standard of review is applied, but the Court’s reviewing exercise is “best reflected on a correctness standard” : Canadian Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FCA 74 at para 57; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54 [ CPR ]. When assessing whether procedural fairness was met, a reviewing court must ask whether the “procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances” : CPR at para 54. [ 12 ] In her written submissions, the Applicant raises several procedural fairness issues (delay, bias, legitimate expectations) in a perfunctory manner, failing to address how she satisfies the relevant legal tests. [ 13 ] With respect to the allegations of delay, the Applicant does not explain how she meets the requirements to establish administrative delay, as set out in [NAME] v [NAME] (Human Rights Commission) , 2000 SCC 44 [ [NAME] ]: Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at para 34. Evidence of prejudice is required to establish that the length of a delay was undue and contrary to procedural fairness: [NAME] at para 101. Here, however, the Applicant has not identified any prejudice resulting from delay. [ 14 ] The Applicant also alleges a reasonable apprehension of bias, stating that the Officer’s reasons disclose stereotyping and lack of an open mind: Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at paras 103, 105. The burden of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias is high: [COMPANY], Education Area #23 v Yukon (Attorney General) , 2015 SCC 25 at para 26. The Applicant’s “[m]ere disagreement” with the Officer’s findings does not amount to evidence of bias: [NAME] v [COMPANY] , 2024 FCA 172 at para 72. [ 15 ] Finally, the Applicant asserts that she had a “legitimate expectation that the visa officer would review and consider all the documents” : Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at para 99. The Applicant’s reliance on [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2013 SCC 36, is misguided. As framed, the Applicant’s issue is not one of procedural fairness but rather a reasonableness argument on the merits: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 371 at para 27. [ 16 ] The Applicant has thus failed to establish any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. C. The Officer’s decision is reasonable [ 17 ] The standard of review of reasonableness applies to the merits of the Officer’s decision: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [ Vavilov ]. A reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” : Vavilov at para 85; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 8 [ [NAME] ]. [ 18 ] A decision should only be set aside if there are “sufficiently serious shortcomings” such that it does not exhibit the requisite attributes of “justification, intelligibility and transparency” : Vavilov at para 100; [NAME] at paras 59–61. Furthermore, the reviewing court “must be satisfied that any shortcomings or flaws relied on by the party challenging the decision are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” : Vavilov at para 100. [ 19 ] Here, the Applicant argues that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable for failing to properly assess the evidence demonstrating a genuine marriage, or by giving “little weight to the evidence” : Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at para 75. This argument, at its core, calls into question the Officer’s assessment and ascribing of weight to the evidence before them. A reviewing court, however, must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker” : Vavilov at para 125, citing Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 SCC 31 at para 55. [ 20 ] A review of the [NAME] notes shows that the Officer did indeed consider the evidence submitted by the Applicant in support. The determinative factor was her failure to “directly address” the Officer’s concern about the evidence that her spouse had relationships with other people since 2016: [NAME] notes dated August 16, 2023, [NAME] at 3; see also: Letter dated August 16, 2023, [NAME] at 43–44. [ 21 ] As the evidence demonstrates, the Applicant was given two opportunities to address the Officer’s concerns that her marriage was not genuine based on the evidence that her spouse had other relationships. After the Applicant’s response to the first letter, she was specifically notified that she had provided “insufficient evidence” addressing the issue and that the onus was on her to prove the genuineness of her marriage: Letter dated May 23, 2023, [NAME] at 40. However, the evidence submitted in response to the procedural fairness letter failed to address the stated concern about the spouse’s relationships with other people. [ 22 ] In the circumstances, given the absence of any response to this express concern, it was reasonably open to the Officer to conclude that the Applicant had not met her burden of proof and to refuse her application. In other words, the Applicant’s silence on this matter was a sufficient basis alone to refuse her application. [ 23 ] Although the foregoing is sufficient to dispose of this application, I will nevertheless address the Applicant’s arguments regarding the Officer’s assessment of the evidence concerning her communications with her spouse, his financial support, and the photographs. [ 24 ] With respect to their communications, the Applicant submits that the Officer erred in finding that they were of “low quality and lack[ing] meaningful conversations” : [NAME] notes dated August 16, 2023, [NAME] at 3. In oral submissions, Applicant’s counsel argued that the Officer could not reasonably make this assessment because most of the communications occurred by way of voice notes on WhatsApp and there was no way for the Officer to listen to them. While that may be so, the screenshots of the selected voice notes submitted show the length of each message, the vast majority of which lasted for less than ten seconds: [NAME] at 165–202. In the circumstances, therefore, I am unable to find that the Officer’s assessment is unreasonable. [ 25 ] After reviewing the financial documentation, the Officer ultimately concluded that the evidence of financial support was “normal because there are children involved” : [NAME] notes dated August 16, 2023, [NAME] at 3. Put another way, the Officer found that the spouse’s financial support was a neutral factor and, on its own, did not demonstrate a genuine marriage. This finding, in my view, is entirely reasonable. [ 26 ] Finally, the Applicant argues that the Officer’s assessment of the photographs was “entirely subjective” : Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at para 107. The Officer commented that: “I also examined the photos provided to support their relationship and note that the in Canada applicant does not appear happy/smiling in the photos with the applicant and deps included on this application, which is unusual given the extended periods of separation between them” : [NAME] notes dated May 22, 2023, [NAME] at 3. [ 27 ] As I stated at the hearing, it is important to note that this observation was made in an earlier [NAME] note (May 22, 2023) and was not repeated in the Officer’s [NAME] notes of August 16, 2023, concerning their final decision. It is therefore unclear whether the Officer relied on this finding to refuse the application. In any event, I agree with the Respondent that the Officer’s reasoning is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish a reviewable error: [NAME] (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 966 at paras 21–22, 30. [ 28 ] As already explained, I find that the Officer’s rejection of the Applicant’s permanent residence application is reasonable given her failure to address the outstanding concerns about her spouse’s other relationships.

IV. Conclusion [ 29 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The parties did not propose any questions for certification, and I agree that none arise.

JUDGMENT in IMM-13778-23 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-13778-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HYBRID (TORONTO, ONTARIO AND BY VIDEOCONFERENCE) DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 10, 2026 reasons AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 15, 2026 APPEARANCES: [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME] and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent