Date: 20010706
Docket: IMM-2675-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 771
BETWEEN:
LEI HUANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of immigration officer D. Shembri, dated May 8, 2000, wherein he denied Lei Huang's application for landing in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds pursuant to subsection 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant came to Canada as a visitor on July 24, 1998. He first met Ann Hsu, a Canadian citizen, on October 8, 1998, and they married on July 6, 1999.
[3] On July 19, 1999, the applicant filed an application for landing in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds as a member of the family class pursuant to subsection 4(3) of the Immigration Regulations, SOR/78-172, and his wife acted as a sponsor.
[4] On May 2, 2000, the applicant and his wife attended an interview before the immigration officer; they were interviewed separately. The immigration officer denied his application on May 8, 2000, having determined that the applicant entered into marriage with his wife primarily for the purpose of gaining admission to Canada and not with the intention of residing permanently with his spouse.
[5] A careful reading of the immigration officer's notes indicate that the immigration officer fully considered the application and provided detailed reasons for his conclusion that the marriage between the applicant and his wife was not bona fide.
[6] The applicant submits that although the immigration officer states in his refusal letter that the applicant did not have the intention of residing permanently with his spouse, there is no indication on the record that the applicant's intention was ever considered by the immigration officer. I disagree.
[7] First, I am of the view that where a marriage is found not to be bona fide, the inference can be made that the spouse has no intention of residing with the other spouse. Both aspects are closely linked.
[8] Second, the immigration officer's notes outline several discrepancies in the evidence and between the applicant's and wife's answers to questions asked during the interview of May 2000. It is clear that both aspects i.e. the genuineness of the marriage and the intention to reside permanently, were considered.
[9] For example, the immigration officer noted inconsistencies in their responses to questions dealing with their common residence, the number of bedrooms in their residence, the colour of their fitted sheet on their mattress, the wife's work schedule, the presence of the wife's parents at the wedding, the receipt of wedding gifts, and what they had done for dinner the night before the interview, at lunch the day of the interview.
[10] The immigration officer also pointed out that the applicant's wife did not know that he had a bank account in Canada. Furthermore, she did not know the colour of the kitchen walls or the living room carpet of their alleged residence.
[11] As stated by Denault J. in Canada (Solicitor General) v. Bisla, (1994), 88 F.T.R. 312, at para 12:
In other words, evidence relevant to the issue of entering a marriage primarily for the purpose of gaining admission to Canada can be relevant to the assessment of the intention of residing permanently with the sponsoring spouse.
[12] Finally, contrary to the applicant's assertion the immigration officer's notes reveal that he spoke to the applicant about the discrepancies and that the applicant was given an opportunity to comment. Therefore, I am satisfied that there was no breach to the duty to act fairly.
[13] Therefore, I am of the opinion that the immigration officer did not err in denying the applicant's application for landing in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
[14] This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 6, 2001.