Ranu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 87 (CanLII)
Judge: Justice Heneghan
Date heard: September 14, 2010
Counsel for Ranu: Hilete Stein
Counsel for Minister: Angela Marinos
Place of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario
The Applicant applied for judicial review of the IAD’s decision that she was inadmissible “on the basis of an indirect misrepresentation, that is because her marriage to Sukhdev Singh Hansra was not genuine.” (para. 1).
The Applicant married Hansra in September 2001. She was sponsored and landed in March 2003 (para. 2).
Hansra had previously been married to the Applicant’s first cousin, and although they legally divorced in June 2001, they continued their relationship and had a child in late 2002 (about four months before the Applicant was landed) (para. 3). Hansra and the Applicant separated two months after she was landed and divorced in September 2004 (para. 4).
The Applicant was match-made with a Mr. Ranu. They were married in March 2005 and a sponsorship was begun in June 2005 (para. 5).
In June 2006, an officer interviewed the Applicant and Mr. Hansra regarding the alleged non-genuineness of their marriage (para. 6); at this point, they had been legally divorced for nine months.
The officer found that the marriage had not been genuine and referred the Applicant to a hearing, and in May 2008 the Immigration Division upheld the finding and issued an exclusion order (paras. 6-7).
The IAD found that although “the Applicant may have believed that her marriage to Mr. Hansra was genuine”, it was nevertheless a marriage of convenience. (para. 8).
Justice Heneghan found the IAD’s credibility assessment flawed; for example, in one place it found the Applicant not credible, and later in the decision it stated she was credible (paras. 13-14).
In my opinion, these statements are contradictory, and render the Board’s decision unintelligible. According to Dunsmuir, an unintelligible decision does not meet the standard of reasonableness. (para. 14)
The Justice also found that the Board’s reasons did not explain it findings, “the Board failed to show its reasoning process” (paras. 16-17). Therefore the reasons were inadequate.
JUDICIAL REVIEW ALLOWED