Date: 20260127

Docket: IMM-8782-24

Citation: 2026 FC 108

Ottawa, Ontario, January 27, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] Six applications were heard consecutively: IMM-8749-24, IMM-8857-24, IMM-8817-24, IMM-8782-24, IMM-8831-24, and IMM-8832-24 on the same day. This was ordered because:

• (a)each application was brought by a person named as the spouse of an applicant in a Convention Refugee from Abroad permanent residence application (CRA application);

• (b)in each case, the CRA applicant is an Eritrean national and the alleged spouse is an Ethiopian national;

• (c)in each case, the same officer found that the alleged spousal relationship was not genuine and was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring permanent residence in Canada;

• (d)in each CRA application, there was a familial relationship between the sponsor under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) Program and the alleged spouse of the CRA applicant; and

• (e)the same counsel represents all six applicants.

[2] The six CRA applications were private sponsorship applications made by a group of 5 Canadian citizens under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) Program [the G5 Group]. The G5 Group sponsored Yodit Ferzghi Tekeste (spouse is Yered Mekureya), Samuel Teklemichael Amanuel (spouse is Helina Zegeye Bekele), Simret Tekleab Mesfin (spouse is Eleni Desalegn Anticho), Biniam Okbu Estifanos (spouse is Zertihun Wubneh Shiferaw), Getelhem Emagnu Assaye (spouse is Bereket Gebremeskel Estifanos). The G5 Group sponsors are related to the Ethiopian spouses of the CRA applicants.

[3] At the request of the Court, the Respondent provided the following summary of these familial relationships, as follows:

[4] Separate Judgment and Reasons will issue in each proceeding. However, as there are quite a few similarities, some paragraphs of these Reasons shall be repeated in the Reasons of the other Applications for Leave and Judicial Review.

I. Overview

[5] The Applicant, Ms. Eleni Desalegn Anticho, seeks judicial review of a decision of an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer [the Officer] finding that her marriage to Mr. Mesfin, the Principal CRA applicant, was not genuine and was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring permanent residence in Canada. As a result of that finding, Ms. Anticho was removed as a family member from the Principal CRA applicant’s refugee application.

[6] This application will be dismissed as the Officer’s decision was reasonable and was made in a procedurally fair manner.

II. Background

[7] Ms. Eleni Desalegn Anticho is a citizen of Ethiopia. She was included in the Group of Five through the refugee application submitted by her spouse, Mr. Simret Tekleab Mesfin. The Applicant’s sponsor is Ms. Tihitena Kebede Wubete, who is her cousin.

III. Decision Below

[8] By letter dated February 21, 2024, the Officer removed the Applicant as a family member from her spouse’s refugee application. The reasons for refusal are contained in the decision letter and the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which provide the substantive basis for the Officer’s conclusion.

[9] The Officer’s decision draws a distinction between the Principal CRA applicant’s refugee eligibility assessment and the bona fides of his relationship with the Applicant. While the Principal CRA applicant was determined as eligible for resettlement to Canada as a refugee, the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant was in a genuine relationship with him that was not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring permanent residence status.

[10] The GCMS notes recorded the following concerns specific to the bona fides of the Applicant’s relationship:

Having reviewed all documents and interview notes I am not satisfied with bona fides of relationship. Despite having some consistency in knowledge of how they met and each others family members , noted that they had no real marriage ceremony, she had no real proof of relationship or communication on her phone which followed a pattern that I had noted.

[11] These notes then explain why the Officer considered the concerns to be broader than just this one couple. The Officer says that in the broader G5 group interviewed, there was a pattern: the refugee was Eritrean, the common-law partner was Ethiopian, and the sponsor or co-sponsor was related to the Ethiopian partner. The Officer records that when checking phones, many couples had little or no call/text history except from mid-January 2024, and several said they did not call because they lived together. When asked for photos over the course of the relationship, many claimed lost or stolen phones and could only show a variety of photos from mid-January 2024 onward. The Officer also notes similarities in “wedding”/outing photos, and that partners were saved in phones as “my Love” or “My world” rather than by name. When the Officer raised concerns and asked what would happen if the Ethiopian partner were not accepted, the Officer records that they said they did not think the sponsorship would proceed.

[12] The detailed interview notes provide further examples the Officer relied on in assessing this couple’s relationship, including where:

• a)The Applicant and her spouse advised the Officer that they had each lost their phones in recent months and were therefore unable to produce a photographic history of their relationship, other than a limited number of photographs taken at a family wedding they attended together in October 2023.

• b)Unlike several other applicants, the Principal Applicant was able to demonstrate Telegram communications with his spouse dating back to October 2022.However, the Applicant herself was only able to provide call history beginning on January 20, 2024, which she explained was due to the loss of her phone.

• c)When asked directly whether the sponsorship was “a way of getting you into Canada,” the Officer recorded that the Applicant agreed. The Officer further noted the Applicant’s statement that, if she were not included, she did not believe the sponsors would proceed with sponsoring her spouse alone.

• d)Although no traditional marriage ceremony had been held, the Applicant produced a marriage certificate issued in Lemi Kura, Ethiopia.

[13] The Officer concluded that the marriage between the Applicant and Principal CRA applicant was not bona fide and had been entered into primarily to acquire permanent residence status in Canada. The Applicant was determined to be an ineligible family member and removed from the Principal CRA applicant’s refugee application under subsection 11(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.

IV. Issue

[14] Two issues are determinative in this application: whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable and whether it was made in a procedurally fair manner. The Applicant submits that the decision is unreasonable because the Officer relied on implausibility findings that, in the Applicant’s view, are entitled to reduced deference, and failed to apply the factors for assessing the marriage set out in Chavez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] IADD No 353, No TA3-24409 at paragraph 3 [Chavez]. The Applicant argues that procedural fairness was breached because the Officer relied on extrinsic considerations, namely perceived similarities between this application and other “G5 group” applications, as well as the Officer’s own knowledge of country conditions in Eritrea and Ethiopia referenced in assessing the genuineness of their marriage.

V. Analysis

A. The Officer’s Decision is reasonable

[15] The Applicant says the decision is unreasonable and points to several deficiencies in the Officer’s assessment.

[16] The Applicant contends that in assessing the genuineness of the marriage the Officer was required to apply the factors set out in Chavez at paragraph 3 (as affirmed in Padda v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 708):

The genuineness of the marriage is based on a number of factors. They are not identical in every appeal as the genuineness can be affected by any number of different factors in each appeal. They can include, but are not limited to, such factors as the intent of the parties to the marriage, the length of the relationship, the amount of time spent together, conduct at the time of meeting, at the time of an engagement and/or the wedding, behavior subsequent to a wedding, the level of knowledge of each other’s relationship histories, level of continuing contact and communication, the provision of financial support, the knowledge of and sharing of responsibility for the care of children brought into the marriage, the knowledge of and contact with extended families of the parties, as well as the level of knowledge of each other’s daily lives. All these factors can be considered in determining the genuineness of a marriage. [emphasis added]

[17] The Chavez factors are not mandatory in an officer’s assessment of the genuineness of a marriage. They are only non-exhaustive factors proposed by the Court that “may be considered”: Khan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 320 at para 22; Alvaro v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1627 at para 24; Gebremedhin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1386 at para 39. The Officer was not required to exhaustively address these factors.

[18] The Officer identified several concerns regarding the sufficiency of the Applicant’s evidence. These concerns included the limited and very recent call history, the loss of both parties’ phones in the months preceding the interview, and the resulting paucity of photographic evidence, which consisted primarily of photographs taken only in the recent period following the loss of those devices. The Applicant submits that these concerns amount to unreasonable implausibility findings that do not meet the standard articulated by this Court in YZ v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 232 [YZ].

[19] At paragraph 12 of YZ, Justice Fuhrer stated:

Plausibility findings should be made in the clearest of cases, such as where the alleged facts are “outside the realm of what reasonably could be expected or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant.” Implausibility determinations demand a more rigorous review than credibility findings which are accorded considerable deference. Absent a reliable and verifiable evidentiary base against which to assess alleged facts, implausibility determinations may amount to little more than impermissible unfounded speculation.

[citations omitted; emphasis added.]

[20] I do not agree with the Respondent that no plausibility findings were made.

[21] The Officer did make plausibility findings, but they were reasonable when assessed in light of the similarities identified across the six applications. As noted above, many of the couples had little or no call or text history before mid-January 2024 and offered similar explanations for that absence. In this case, the Applicant’s call history showed records dating back only to January 20, 2024, which she attributed to the loss of her phone around that time. Similarly, when asked to provide photographs over the course of their relationships, several applicants claimed lost or stolen phones and produced only recent photographs. Here, the Applicant and her spouse both stated that they had lost their phones in the months preceding the interview and were therefore unable to provide photographs from their devices. While any one of these circumstances, including the nature of the sponsor’s relationship to the sponsored spouse, might, when viewed in isolation, have been capable of an innocent explanation, the Officer was entitled to consider them cumulatively. In light of the recurring pattern of conduct observed across the applications, it was open to the Officer to find aspects of the Applicant’s evidence to be implausible.

[22] Indeed, the onus always remained on the Applicant to put forward her best case and to ensure that the information set out in the application was complete, relevant, convincing, and unambiguous (Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 657 at para 21, citing Shahzad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 999 at paras 19, 40 and Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Genter, 2018 FC 32 at para 13).

[23] It is also noteworthy in this particular matter that the Officer recorded the Applicant’s acknowledgement that, if her husband, the principal applicant, were not permitted to enter Canada, it was unlikely that the sponsors would proceed with sponsoring her. The Officer further noted the Applicant’s agreement that the sponsorship was a means by which she sought to enter Canada.

[24] The Officer’s reasons are intelligible and justified. No reviewable error was made.

B. The Officer did not improperly rely on extrinsic evidence

[25] Procedural fairness requires an immigration officer provide an applicant with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the application process: Quan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 576 at para 34; Mohammed v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2019 FC 326 at para 25. An applicant must be told of concerns that are material, and must be given the chance to answer them, before the decision is reached. Those concerns include inconsistencies said to exist in the application record, concerns regarding the genuineness or reliability of documents, credibility concerns that could affect the outcome, or the Officer’s intended reliance on extrinsic evidence not found in the record: Bui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 440 at para 27 [Bui].

[26] The Applicant’s procedural fairness argument centres on the claim that the Officer was required to inform her of concerns arising from perceived similarities in behaviour and evidentiary deficiencies among the six applicants, but failed to do so. The Applicant submits that these concerns were based on extrinsic considerations and formed a basis for the decision, and therefore ought to have been raised either in a second interview or by way of a Procedural Fairness Letter. She also argues that the Officer improperly relied on their own knowledge of country conditions in Eritrea and Ethiopia.

[27] The Applicant relies on Abasher v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1591 at para 19 [Abasher] and Tshibangile v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 451 at paras 24–25 [Tshibangile] to argue that procedural fairness required the Officer to raise additional credibility concerns after the interview. With respect, those cases do not assist the Applicant. Unlike Abasher and Tshibangile, the concerns relied on here did not arise from undisclosed or external information as the Applicant suggests. Rather, they arise directly from the Applicant’s own evidence and from the known family and sponsorship relationships within the six applications. Those relationships were apparent on the record and known, or reasonably should have been known, to the Applicant.

[28] Moreover, an immigration officer is not ordinarily obligated to place an applicant on notice of concerns that arise directly from the requirements of the Act or the Regulations. The onus remains on the applicant to establish the requirements are met: Bui at para 28, citing Al Aridi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 381 at para 20; Saatchi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1037 at para 40.

[29] I will briefly comment on the Applicant’s submission that the Officer relied on her own knowledge of country conditions in Eritrea and Ethiopia. In the Officer’s affidavit, she does attest: “Based on my knowledge of the country conditions of both Eritrea and Ethiopia, it is generally uncommon for couples from these countries to cohabit in a common-law arrangement prior to marriage because marriage is highly significant both socially and religiously.” However, nowhere in the Reasons for the decision under review is reliance on the Officer’s knowledge reflected.

[30] In these circumstances, I find that the Officer did not rely on extrinsic considerations requiring further notice to the Applicant. There was no breach of procedural fairness.

[31] No question was offered to be certified by either party.

JUDGMENT in IMM-8782-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed, and no question is certified.

"Russel W. Zinn"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: