Somali woman who was in a polygamous marriage and lied to get into Canada wins another chance to stay
A Somali woman barred from Canada for five years for giving false names and birth dates for herself and her two children while applying for refugee status here, dodging the fact that she had entered into a polygamous marriage with a Canadian-Somali man, has won another chance at staying in this country.
Fadumo Yusuf Mohamed Abdille came to Canada in 2012 and was granted refugee status, but that was vacated in 2023 due to misrepresentation on her refugee claim, according to a recent Federal Court decision out of Toronto.
In 2002, Abdille, who is also a citizen of the Netherlands, met her future husband in Holland, through a mutual uncle.
Abdille’s “future husband was already married in Canada, and the applicant was aware of that fact,” said the decision.
“However, as they are both of the Muslim faith, (Abdille) understood that men are permitted to have multiple wives. Accordingly, they celebrated their Islamic marriage on October 26, 2002.”
Abdille’s husband travelled frequently to the Netherlands and they had two children in the decade between 2002 and 2012, the court heard.
“Seeking to reunite with her husband and the father of her children in Canada, (Abdille) came to Canada from the Netherlands with their children unannounced on July 31, 2012,” said the decision, dated Nov. 19.
She “obtained refugee status for herself and their two children under false names, false birth dates, as citizens of Somalia, and seeking protection from persecution in Somalia,” it said.
“Despite being married under Islam since 2002, (Abdille) could not be sponsored in Canada by her husband, because polygamous marriages are not legally recognized under Canadian law. Moreover, given that her husband was married and had a child with his first wife, (Abdille) lived separately from her husband in Canada.”
She and her husband had their third child in March 2014.
“In 2018, the husband’s first wife passed away following an illness. Sensitive to the circumstances and their impact on (Abdille’s) husband’s child from his first marriage, (she) and her husband continued to live separately, while progressively integrating each other’s lives,” said the decision.
They moved in together in early 2022 and celebrated a civil marriage that fall.
That same year, Canada’s immigration minister asked for a reassessment of Abdille’s refugee status.
“In a decision dated March 9, 2023, (her) refugee status was vacated because she misrepresented material facts in her original claim,” said the decision.
Abdille “admitted to having provided false information on her refugee claim for the sole reason of reuniting with her husband, and for her children to be close to their father.”
Abdille applied for permanent residency in Canada in May 2023 under her husband’s sponsorship.
“Similarly, the children are currently in the process of obtaining citizenship as their father is a Canadian citizen,” said the decision.
But an immigration officer rejected Abdille’s two applications for permanent residency, one made based on her husband’s sponsorship and another made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, in September 2024.
“The officer rejected (Abdille’s) applications on the basis that her marriage with her spouse was not genuine, because the officer found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that they lived together. Moreover, (Abdille) did not demonstrate sufficient (humanitarian and compassionate) grounds to allow her to overcome her inadmissibility as a result of her misrepresentation on her refugee claim,” said the decision.
The officer found Abdille’s “misrepresentation in her original refugee claim was a serious violation of Canadian immigration law. The officer noted that many of (Abdille’s) documents contained inconsistent information relating to her and her husband’s living arrangements; notably many documents continued to be sent to her previous address, such that the officer concluded that the marriage was not genuine.”
While the officer noted that the best interest of Abdille’s children was considered, “the hardship that may be caused by her removal did not outweigh the serious nature of her misrepresentation.”
Abdille argued successfully that the officer’s decision was unreasonable.
Abdille pointed out that the officer who decided her case “was silent” on evidence establishing “the genuineness of her relationship with her husband, including the children’s DNA Testing Report,” and her husband’s letters supporting her sponsorship demonstrating that she lived with him.
The officer found Abdille had a lack of documentary “evidence proving that their lives were intertwined physically or financially in a manner typically associated with married couples,” said the decision. “Precisely, the officer found that many documents continued to indicate that (Abdille) remained at her old address and that the banking information submitted did not demonstrate sufficient financial family transactions; therefore, the evidence showed that (Abdille) and her husband led separate lives.”
Lawyers for the immigration minister argued the officer “reasonably assessed the evidence as a whole in determining that (Abdille) had failed to demonstrate that she met the criteria of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada Class, and reasonably determined that (Abdille) had not demonstrated sufficient (humanitarian and compassionate) grounds to warrant an exemption from the statutory five-year bar on immigration to Canada due to her misrepresentation,” said the decision.
“Notably, (Abdille’s) proven fraud on the immigration system had an impact on the credibility of the documents she submitted which included inconsistent documentary evidence of a genuine marital relationship; and her cynical manipulation of the refugee determination system for the purpose of family reunification does not warrant exempting her from the five-year inadmissibility she faces as a result of her own conduct.”
Justice Guy Régimbald agreed with Abdille.
The immigration officer didn’t consider DNA evidence that proved Abdille’s husband fathered her three children when evaluating “the genuineness of their marriage,” said the judge, noting that “undermines the reasonableness” of the officer’s decision.
“Concerning the lack of evidence demonstrating that (Abdille’s) life with her husband was physically and financially interconnected, the absence of a joint bank account or the lack of both names on certain utility bills does not necessarily negate the bona fide nature of their marriage,” Régimbald said.
When Abdille provided explanations for inconsistencies, the “officer failed to weigh this evidence, despite the explanations provided, and instead put great emphasis on (Abdille’s) previous misrepresentation,” said the judge.
“Most importantly, the officer failed to explain why the evidence was not sufficient to allow (Abdille) to discharge her burden.”
The officer should have given Abdille and her husband the opportunity to address inconsistencies in her story, Régimbald said.
“While an interview is not always necessary and depends on the facts of each particular case, I find that in this case, the failure does constitute a breach of (Abdille’s) right to procedural fairness and to be able to answer the case to be met with a full and fair chance to respond,” said the judge.
“In light of these findings, the decision is not justified, transparent or intelligible … and must be sent back for redetermination.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Unpublished Newswire
Comments
Be the first to comment