Abdelgalil Abdalla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Abdelgalil Abdalla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2025-10-06 Neutral citation 2025 FC 1649 File numbers IMM-18607-24 Decision Content Date: 20251006 Docket: IMM-18607-24 Citation: 2025 FC 1649 Ottawa, Ontario, October 6, 2025 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk BETWEEN: Eisa Abdalla Abdelgalil Abdalla Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Overview [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an immigration officer (Officer), dated September 19, 2024, finding that the Applicant is not a member of the family class and could therefore not be included in an application for permanent residence submitted by his partner (the Decision). [2] The Applicant argues that the Decision does not exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency to be considered reasonable. [3] The Respondent argues that the Decision was reasonable. [4] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed. II. Background [5] The Applicant is a Sudanese citizen who resides in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). [6] On October 11, 1994, the Applicant married Reem Fakhreddine Mohamed (first wife). On February 6, 2026, the relationship allegedly ended in separation. The Applicant and his first wife have not divorced. [7] On September 7, 2007, the Applicant married Aberash Aserate Feka (second wife). On January 15, 2017, the relationship allegedly ended in separation. The Applicant and his second wife have three children together. The Applicant has also not divorced his second wife. [8] The Applicant indicated he has not divorced his first wife and his second wife because their residency in the UAE is contingent on their remaining legally married to the Applicant. [9] On June

14, 2017, the Applicant met Khansa Ahmed Abdalrhman Ahmed. On August 5, 2017, the Applicant and Ms. Ahmed allegedly commenced living together as a common-law couple. [10] The Applicant and Ms. Ahmed followed Islamic Sharia Law/tradition and obtained a religious marriage certificate on March 5, 2021. [11] The couple continued to live together until Ms. Ahmed left for Canada on December 21, 2021, to claim refugee status. [12] On November 30, 2022, Ms. Ahmed was granted refugee status. Ms. Ahmed then sought to obtain permanent residence status in 2023 and included the Applicant as her dependent common-law partner pursuant to subsection 176(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (IRPR). [13] On November 22, 2023, the Officer sent the Applicant a procedural fairness letter (PFL) that highlighted the following concerns: You state that you have been in a common-law relationship with Khansa Ahmed Abdalrhman Ahmed since 2017/08/05. I note that you remain married to two other women whom you have not divorced, and while I have considered your reasons for this, you have provided very limited evidence that you have cohabited for a period of at least one year with Khansa Ahmed Abdalrhman Ahmed, and that you have done so in a conjugal relationship. Given that you continue to sponsor your other wives’ residency in the UAE, I have concerns that your relationships

with your two other wives have not ended… [14] On December 11, 2023, the Applicant responded to this letter with an explanatory note wherein he indicated that he and Ms. Ahmed are married consistent with the Islamic tradition in the UAE. He also provided information such as rental agreements, insurance documents and letters from friends to support the claim that he and Ms. Ahmed had been living together since 2017. [15] On September 19, 2024, the Officer found that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentary and corroborating evidence to demonstrate that he was separated from his second wife. Accordingly, the Officer was unable to find that the Applicant had been living separate and apart from his second wife for a period of at least one year as required by subsections 1(1) and 1(3) of the IRPR. III. Issues and Standard of Review [16] The parties submit and I agree that the applicable standard of review in this case is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (Vavilov) at paras 25, 86). [17] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at paras 12–15, 95). The starting point for a reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, a reasonable

decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 85). [18] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100). IV. Statutory Framework [19] Subsection 1(1) and paragraph 1(3)(a) of the IRPR indicates that ‘family member’ includes a spouse or common-law partner: 1 (1) The definitions in this subsection apply in the Act and in these Regulations. 1 (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la Loi et au présent règlement. common-law partner means, in relation to a person, an individual who is cohabiting with the person in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year. (conjoint de fait) conjoint de fait Personne qui vit avec la personne en cause dans une relation conjugale depuis au moins un an. (common-law partner) … […] (3) For the purposes of the Act, other than section 12 and paragraph 38(2)(d), and for the purposes of these Regulations, other than paragraph 7.1(3)(a) and sections 159.1 and 159.5, family member in respect of a person means (3) Pour l’application de la Loi — exception faite de l’article 12 et de l’alinéa 38(2)d) — et du présent règlement — exception

faite de l’alinéa 7.1(3)a) et des articles 159.1 et 159.5 —, membre de la famille, à l’égard d’une personne, s’entend de : (a) the spouse or common-law partner of the person; a) son époux ou conjoint de fait; (b) a dependent child of the person or of the person’s spouse or common-law partner; and b) tout enfant qui est à sa charge ou à la charge de son époux ou conjoint de fait; (c) a dependent child of a dependent child referred to in paragraph (b). c) l’enfant à charge d’un enfant à charge visé à l’alinéa b). V. Analysis [20] The Applicant argued that the Officer erred in their analysis, as there was evidence that indicated he was not cohabitating with his first wife; the “Statement of Separation”. The Applicant argues that the Officer did not consider contradictory evidence that supported his claim. [21] In addition, the Applicant points to the letters of support from friends that he argues confirm he is in a common-law relationship with Ms. Ahmed. [22] The Applicant argued that because there is some evidence he is in a common-law relationship with Ms. Ahmed, this supports his assertion that he was living separate from his first wife and second wife. In other words, the Officer did not properly consider the totality of the evidence. [23] The Respondent submits that to be an eligible “family member”, an applicant must prove that they meet the definition of “spouse” or “common

law partner” as defined in the IRPR. As noted above, the Applicant was required to demonstrate that he was in a common-law relationship with Ms. Ahmed, with evidence that they cohabitated for a period of at least one year, as required by; subsection 1(1) of the IRPR. In addition, the Respondent submits that the Applicant was required to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Officer that the previous relations had ended and that he was living separate and apart from his first wife and second wife. [24] A review of the record illustrates that the Officer considered the limited evidence the Applicant provided that supported his claims that they were in a common-law relationship. The Officers GCMS notes indicate that the evidence provided by the Applicant in support of his claim was found to be insufficient by the Officer for two reasons: First the Applicant provided rental agreements indicating that he and Ms. Ahmed were living together at 816 Parkview Building in the UAE from May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022, however, it is noted that Ms. Ahmed made a refugee claim from within Canada on December 19, 2021. Second, the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that demonstrated he was no longer living with his first wife and his second wife. The Officer noted that the Applicant provided a “statement of separation” from his first wife, however, details such as the date of

separation and their places of residence were missing. There was no corroborating evidence to support the alleged separation between the Applicant and his second wife. [25] An applicant bears the onus to provide sufficient evidence to establish the factual basis for their claim. Failure to provide sufficient details or corroborating evidence that is reasonably available to support a claim may be fatal to an application (Nacar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1647 at para 39–40, citing Senadheerage v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 968 at paras 23–35). [26] I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s argument. A review of the Officer’s decision demonstrates that the totality of the evidence was considered. The Officer found the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant was not living with his first or second wife and that he had been living common-law with Ms. Ahmed for at least one year. I note that the Officer states: While there is some evidence that the PA and the PA-CDA are in a romantic relationship together, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant meets the definition of a common-law partner. The PA and PA-CDA can be considered to be common-law partners if the PA's previous marriages have broken down and if they have lived separate and apart from them for at least one year, during which time they

must have cohabited in a conjugal relationship. Cohabitation with a common-law partner can only be considered to have started once a physical separation from the spouse has occurred. I have considered the letters from the UAE real estate companies which attest to the PA and PA-CDA living together however there is insufficient information about the physical separation from the PA and his other two wives. While he has provided a letter from wife #1 Reem in which she states that she and the PA-CDA are not cohabiting but remain married for "practical reasons", there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that they live separately; she has not provided documentary evidence of her separate residence and no dates have been provided with regards to their separation. Meanwhile no declaration has been provided from wife #2, instead the PA has provided a declaration stating that he is separated from her, but without additional documentary evidence of their physical separation such as proof of a separate residence location. Given that the applicant remains married to two other women for whom he continues to be the sponsor of their UAE visas, that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he lived separate and apart from these other wives prior to cohabiting with the PA-CDA (or indeed that he currently lives separate and apart from them), I am not satisfied that the applicant meets

the definition of a common-law partner or that he meets the definition of a conjugal partner. [Emphasis added.] [27] With respect, evidence of the Applicants relationship with Ms. Ahmed, is not sufficient evidence that he was living separate and apart from his first and second wives. In my view, it was open to the Officer to find that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Applicant was separated and living separate and apart from both his first and second wife, and that he had been living with Ms. Ahmed for a period of one year. The Officer’s decision is transparent, intelligible and justified. The Decision is responsive to the totality of evidence provided in support of the application and is entitled to deference. VI. Conclusion [28] The Applicant is not happy with the Decision; however, his arguments are an invitation for this Court to reweigh and assess the evidence considered by the Officer to reach a different conclusion. This is not the proper role for the Court on an application for judicial review (Doyal v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237 at paras 3-4). [29] It is well established that an applicant has the onus to support their application with clear evidence, the Applicant has failed to meet the evidentiary burden to support his claim. [30] The parties did not pose questions for certification, and I agree that there are none. JUDGMENT in IMM-18607-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified. "Julie Blackhawk" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-18607-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: EISA ABDALLA ABDELGALIL ABDALLA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: october 1, 2025 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: BLACKHAWK j. DATED: october 6, 2025 APPEARANCES: Daniel Radin For The Applicant Jake Boughs For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Daniel Radin Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent