X Relations/Children have NO BEARING on GENUINENESS

[Phalos]

Was reading up on CanLII Spousal Sponsorship APEAL CASES.
Found something useful for ALL to KNOW:

"The appellant testified that her relationship with the applicant became sexual soon after meeting him in Egypt (at about age 46), and that she was trying to become pregnant by him, but does not necessarily mean that this development reflected a genuine relationship. A couple may have a sexual relationship without that relationship being genuine. Neither are the existence of a child or the attempts to have a child determinative of genuineness. The appellant’s answer to the question of why she was trying to get pregnant so soon after meeting the applicant leaves out her actual relationship with the applicant: she said had always wanted a child her whole life and that if this could be the first one, it would be great, but it did not happen. Although I have empathy for the appellant’s situation, and accept that she has been and is much more emotionally invested in the relationship than the applicant (an observation the visa officer was also able to make without even meeting her[10]), the sexual component and desire to have children have some positive, though not determinative, weight."
Source:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/do...=AAAAAQALbm90IGdlbnVpbmUAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2

 

[armoured]

the sexual component and desire to have children have some positive, though not determinative, weight."

It is interesting but your thread headline is misleading - it most definitely does not say "no bearing on genuineness" - it says not determinative (but still 'positive') - i.e. x relations and/or children not sufficient on their own.

I don't find this new. It would in contrast potentially be interesting if there was a statement or finding that x relations or children introduce some kind of presumption (or benefit of doubt given to the couple) about genuineness. (Reading between the lines, there were so many other issues that it never got to the need to introduce or discuss such a concept).

Also note I don't think this says that there were children, only an attempt to have children. Actual children might have introduced a number of other questions, incl H&C considerations for the child, joint efforts to raise/support the child (indicating a genuine relationship), etc.

Ultimately though this decision's lead-off points show what torpedoed this application/appeal: "The only thing that about the testimony of the spouses that was consistent about the beginning of their relationship was that it began online. ... After that, the contradictions began."

Skimming the text of consideration of the genuineness of the relationship, there was very little evidence to support. That was sufficient to decide against them. It's also interesting that the IRB member notes that since it was not considered genuine, no need to determine that it was entered into 'for the purpose of obtaining a[n immigration] benefit'; but that for the record, the primary purpose of entering into the marriage likely was for immigration benefits (i.e. immigration fraud).

(The only complexity really was that the IRB member found that it might have been a genuine relationship from the perspective of the sponsor, but that it was not for the applicant.)

 

[Phalos]

It is interesting but your thread headline is misleading - it most definitely does not say "no bearing on genuineness" - it says not determinative (but still 'positive') - i.e. x relations and/or children not sufficient on their own.

The Visa Officer said "still positive", the judge said these things are not determinative, in other words in of itself they have no bearing on genuiness- unless ofc as you say there are other secondary factors that come into play as a result of having children...and certainly have X means nothing according to that judge, but we all know that consumation of marriage is very important, so this is all very contradicting.

 

[armoured]

The Visa Officer said "still positive", the judge said these things are not determinative, in other words in of itself they have no bearing on genuiness- unless ofc as you say there are other secondary factors that come into play as a result of having children...and certainly have X means nothing according to that judge, but we all know that consumation of marriage is very important, so this is all very contradicting.

It was the judge, not the visa officer, that said "the sexual component and desire to have children have some positive, though not determinative, weight." (Well, the visa officer may have said that as well, but this specific quote is from the judge).

This does not mean "no bearing," nor does it 'mean nothing'; determinative here means insufficient on its own (or not a decisive factor), despite the fact that it is a positive factor.

So yes, they do have a bearing on genuineness, but are not on their own enough and must be considered in context of other relationship factors.

If you read above, this language mimics exactly the discussion of the sponsor/applicant's shared faith: "For individuals that profess to place a strong importance on the faith in their lives as the appellant and applicant have, a shared faith with one’s spouse weighs towards genuineness. Though that is a positive factor, it is not determinative."

Shared faith: positive factor, but not sufficient or determinative.
X relations/children: positive factor, but not sufficient or determinative.

In no way does this mean that X relations or children have 'no bearing' on determinations of genuineness.

 

[Phalos]

I see, those are good points you said. MAKES SENSE, well EXPLAINED.
THEREFORE, on their own they cannot determine but on WHOLE they are positive, as is FAITH, etc, etc.
Good to know for members. I think this case give good examples and teach us about GENUINENESS.
Thx!

 

[armoured]

I see, those are good points you said. MAKES SENSE, well EXPLAINED.
THEREFORE, on their own they cannot determine but on WHOLE they are positive, as is FAITH, etc, etc.
Good to know for members. I think this case give good examples and teach us about GENUINENESS.
Thx!

Yes. In simple terms, none of the individual elements of a genuine relationship are sufficient. They are positive, or negative, or neutral - and in each case of these elements, positive or negative contributing factors may be mitigated by other factors. The case officers look at the entire file to determine genuineness - some cases are easy and straightforward, others require more judgment.

But I'd add one really important thing about this case (and many cases that may be less straightforward): credibility and consistency. Apart from all the other issues with this file, the applicant and sponsor were not consistent and not credible in their explanation and factual matters about their case.

Even if this was a difficult case (and I don't think it was), the line that opened the judgment - "that was the only thing that was consistent ... and then the contradictions began" - is what absolutely closed the file.