Date: 20001024
Docket: IMM-5631-99
BETWEEN:
TARSEM KAUR SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] The applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Appeal Division") dated November 5, 1999, pursuant to which the Appeal Division concluded that Major Singh Bath and Upkar Singh Bath were not members of the family class, within the meaning of the Immigration Regulations, 1978.
[2] Before the Appeal Division was an appeal by the applicant herein from the refusal by a visa officer of a sponsored application for permanent residence made by the applicant's husband, Major Singh Bath, and his dependent son, Upkar, from India. The visa officer refused the sponsored application because of his view that the husband had married the applicant primarily for the purpose of gaining admission to Canada as a member of the family class, and not with the intention of residing permanently with her.
[3] The applicant was born in Fiji, of Indian parents. On September 11, 1989, the applicant and five of her children were granted landing in Canada. This was the result of a successful sponsorship application made by the applicant's oldest daughter, a Canadian resident. I should note that the applicant's husband, the father of her six children, died on December 25, 1985, in Fiji.
[4] On July 5, 1994, the applicant married Major Singh Bath, whose wife had died on December 12, 1993. Mr. Bath and his first wife had three children, the two eldest of whom were twins. In 1992, the twins were adopted by Mr. Bath's brother, a resident of Calgary, Alberta. The twins' application for permanent residence was initially refused, but on January 15, 1998, the Appeal Division allowed the appeal. The twins are now living with their adoptive parents in Calgary.
[5] On September 27, 1994, the applicant filed an undertaking of assistance to sponsor her husband, who attended an interview at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi on February 21, 1995. On October 5, 1995, a visa officer issued a letter of refusal. In January 1996, the applicant filed a second undertaking of assistance to sponsor her husband, who was interviewed in connection with the second sponsorship on March 11, 1997. On April 2, 1997, a different visa officer issued a letter of refusal. The appeal to the Appeal Division was in respect of the second refusal. On November 5, 1999, member Peter Carver, of the Appeal Division, held that the applicant's husband and his dependent son were not members of the family class, and hence dismissed the applicant's appeal from the refusal to approve the application for landing.
[6] In my view, this is not a matter in which I should intervene. I have carefully reviewed the evidence before Mr. Carver, including the transcripts of the evidence given by the applicant, her husband, her sister-in-law, and her daughter, Sharanjit Kaur Singh. Notwithstanding the forceful arguments made by Mr. Mangat and Mr. Crowson, I have not been persuaded that the Appeal Division made any error, either of fact or of law, which would allow me to intervene. There was sufficient evidence, in my view, to allow Mr. Carver to conclude, as he did, that Major Singh Bath married the applicant for the primary purpose of gaining admission to Canada and not with the intention of residing permanently with her. At pages 3 and 4 of her Memorandum of Argument, the respondent sets out a number of facts and findings which led the Appeal Division to conclude that the husband had married the applicant primarily for the purpose of gaining admission to Canada and not with the intention of residing permanently with her. These facts and findings are as follows:
| (a) Mr. Bath and his son are the only remaining members of his family living in India; his other family members reside in Calgary, Alberta, where the Applicant resides; |
| (b) Mr. Bath's two older children were adopted by his brother who resides in Calgary, Alberta, at the time when Mr. Bath's wife was ill; |
| (c) during his first interview, Mr. Bath knew very little about the Applicant; he did not know what work she did, her level of education, when she immigrated to Canada, the names of her children, or whether she had any siblings; |
| (d) during his first interview, Mr. Bath stated that he married the appellant so that his son could have a better life in Canada; |
| (e) the Applicant did not appeal from the refusal of Mr. Bath's first application for permanent residence in Canada because she was advised by Mr. Bath's sister not to do so;; |
| (f) Mr. Bath's poor performance at his first interview was probably a factor in the decision to have Mr. Bath submit a second application for permanent residence rather than appealing the refusal of his first application; |
| (g) the Applicant and Mr. Bath gave contradictory testimony regarding whether or not Mr. Bath had communicated with the Applicant's son; |
| (h) except for the alleged communication between the Applicant and Mr. Bath, there was no communication between the members of the two families which the Appeal Division found to be inconsistent with the idea that these two families are to be brought together; |
| (i) the different manner in which the Applicant's [sic] gave the portion of her testimony concerning the arrangement of the marriage gave the impression that it had been rehearsed a number of times; |
| (j) Mr. Bath's testimony that the fact that his family lived in Calgary played no part in his desire to immigrate was implausible and adversely affected his credibility; |
| (k) the Applicant and Mr. Bath provided contradictory testimony regarding Mr. Bath's ability to speak and read English; |
| (l) there was no satisfactory explanation for the contradictory evidence to the location of the marriage; their explanation that the marriage took place in Ghulal and was registered in Moga was unreasonable since Mr. Bath had stated, at his first interview, that the marriage took place in Moga, where he believed, relatives of the Applicant lived; |
| (m) both Mr. Bath and the Applicant testified that none of her relatives attended the wedding; however, at his first interview, Mr. Bath stated that 25-30 of her relatives attended the wedding; |
| (n) Mr. Bath's statement at his first interview that the Applicant lived with his brothers in Calgary was denied by all the witnesses at the hearing; however, documents adduced in evidence by the Applicant showed the same address for her as for Mr. Bath's brother in Calgary; and |
| (o) Mr. Bath's family played a prominent role in arranging the marriage as well as directing the application process. |
[7] I am not prepared to say, nor could I say, that all of these facts and findings are beyond reproach. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Carver's decision. Consequently, I cannot but dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review.
"Marc Nadon"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
October 24, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-5631-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: TARSEM KAUR SINGH |
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, ALBERTA |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J. |
DATED: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000
| APPEARANCES BY: J.S. Mangat, and |
Mr. Melvin L. Crowson
| For the Applicant |
| Ms. Lorraine Neill |
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mangat & Company |
Barristers & Solicitors
#1710, 520 - 5th Ave. S. W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3R7
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20001024
Docket: IMM-5631-99
Between:
TARSEM KAUR SINGH
Applicant
-and-
| THE MINISTER OF |
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |