Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20060509

Docket: IMM-6072-05

Citation: 2006 FC 578

Ottawa, Ontario, May 9, 2006

PRESENT:      The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan

BETWEEN:

UBONG SUNDAY UMOH

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                This judicial review is of a decision by an Immigration Officer dismissing the Applicant's (Umoh) family class application for permanent residence. The decision turns on the Officer's finding concerning the genuineness of the Applicant's marriage to Lynn Jo-Anna Craft Umoh (Craft).

I.           Background

[2]                Umoh, a native of Nigeria, met Craft, a Canadian citizen, in a coffee shop at the Hong Kong Airport. They allege that as a result of correspondence, phone calls and e-mails, they decided to marry.

[3]                On the basis of a visitor's visa issued to visit family living in Canada, whom the Court was advised had left the country before his arrival, Umoh came to Canada where he married Craft in a civil ceremony in February 2003. The two subsequently married in a religious service in September 2005.

[4]                In the Immigration Officer's decision, she makes negative credibility findings based on the following: the lack of knowledge of each other's family and friends, lack of knowledge of work history and inconsistencies between the two exhibited at the interview.

[5]                It is apparent from the decision and Officer's notes that the inconsistencies and evidentiary gaps which surfaced at the interview were critical. These included:

·                     discrepancies with respect to their first contact after their initial meeting;

·                     absence of correspondence and discrepancies regarding correspondence;

·                     lack of credibility in Umoh obtaining the visitor's visa;

·                     insufficient proof of interdependency;

·                     inability to recall names of Craft's close friends when shown photographs; and

·                     inconsistencies in respect of events surrounding the civil wedding.

II.          Analysis

[6]                The Applicant asks this Court to reach its own conclusion as to the bona fides of the marriage. That is not the function of the Court sitting in judicial review of the Officer's determination regarding the credibility of the Applicant's claim that the marriage is genuine and not a marriage of convenience. Rather, the function of the Court is to assess the Officer's decision on a standard of review of either reasonableness or patent unreasonableness; the particular standard does not matter for these purposes.

[7]                The Applicant attempted to raise the issue of bias, but the issue had never been raised previously and there was no evidentiary basis for this submission. The Court refused to hear the Applicant on this point.

[8]                The Applicant also claimed that there were explanations for the inconsistencies which he had never been afforded an opportunity to provide. There was no evidentiary basis for these explanations, despite counsel's efforts to interweave this evidence into his argument.

[9]                There was no obligation, in these circumstances, imposed on the Officer to give the Applicant notice that there were inconsistencies in the evidence which he had to address. The obligation to put forward the evidence in a credible manner rested with the Applicant.

[10]            In this case, there was evidence that the Officer had afforded Umoh and Craft an opportunity to make further submissions after the interview. The Officer had asked for more evidence of interdependency. The Applicant chose not to put forward anything further. One would have thought that after the interview and together Umoh and Craft could have addressed their differences in evidence.

[11]            I can find nothing unreasonable, much less patently so, about the Officer's conclusions. Further, I can find nothing unfair or procedurally incorrect about the Officer's conduct or decision.

[12]            Therefore, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT

            IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review will be dismissed.

"Michael L. Phelan"

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           IMM-6072-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           UBONG SUNDAY UMOH

                                                            and

                                                            THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Calgary, Alberta

DATE OF HEARING:                       May 8, 2006

REASONS FOR ORDER:                Phelan J.

DATED:                                              May 9, 2006

APPEARANCES:

Mr. John H.G. Casuga	FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Rick Garvin	FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

JOHN H.G. CASUGA Barrister & Solicitor Calgary, Alberta	FOR THE APPLICANT
MR. JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta	FOR THE RESPONDENT