Manekiya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Page 4
A tribunal may make adverse findings of credibility based on the implausibility
of an applicant's story provided the inferences drawn can be reasonably said to
exist. However, plausibility findings should be made only in the clearest of cases,
i.e., if the facts as presented are outside the realm of what could reasonably be
expected, or where the documentary evidence demonstrates that the events could
not have happened in the manner asserted by the claimant.
13 In this case, it was the visa officer's concerns that were the focus of the evidence and the respondent's
cross-examination and submissions at this de novo hearing. The visa officer's decision
was not, in the circumstances, unreasonable given the information before the officer. However, I
found the appellant to be a credible witness. His testimony was consistent and forthright. He provided
a detailed and entirely plausible description of the development of his relationship with the
applicant. Indeed, I found him to be quite compelling and, regardless of the presumption of truthfulness,
have no hesitation in finding that he has been honest in his testimony.
14 The appellant provided a credible account of the development of his relationship with the
applicant. Further, I was satisfied with the evidence that speaks to ongoing communication between
appellant and the applicant and their future plans together. In particular, after the appellant married
the applicant and returned to Canada in early 2007 he obtained a project in the United States of
America (USA) and went to Rockville, Maryland in November 2007 to work. The applicant and her
two children applied for and were granted visas to unite with the appellant in the USA and ever
since June 2008 they have been living together as a family.
15 Although the visa officer was concerned with the proof of marriage and was correct that the
certificate issued by the temple was not adequate, the applicant was able to obtain a passport issued
by the Indian government based upon the certificate of registration of marriage. The applicant's
passport shows the appellant as her husband. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the marriage
in India was lawful.
16 The appellant said the applicant did not attend her interview in June 2009 because she was
ill due to her pregnancy. Fatima, their daughter of 22 months, was born six months later in the USA.
17 Regarding the visa officer's concern with respect to the difference in education between the
appellant and the applicant, the appellant also said that he views the applicant as knowledgeable
based upon real life experiences, though she lacks formal education.
18 I find the photographs and communication records submitted in this appeal to be convincing
evidence of an intimate relationship between the appellant and applicant. In this case, the testimony
of the appellant and the documentary evidence were sufficient to persuade me of the bona fides of
their relationship and that the marriage was not entered into primarily for the applicant to gain status
under IRPA.
19 I agree with counsel for the respondent that it was not necessary to have the applicant to testify
by teleconference. In the Mann v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 8 , Member Stein commented
as follows:
... By focusing the legal inquiry on the broad question of whether the marriage is
genuine, I believe Parliament intended a shift away from a narrow and potentially
myopic focus on the intentions of the applicant at the time of the marriage. This