Avoiding Inland Sponsorship Refusals: Practical Lessons from Recent Federal Court Decision

In Alufa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1919, the Federal Court reaffirmed a crucial message for inland spousal sponsorship applicants: IRCC will refuse applications when evidence of a genuine relationship and cohabitation is inconsistent, contradictory, or weakly supported, and the Court will not overturn those refusals when officers provide clear, reasonable justification.

This case illustrates the standards IRCC applies and highlights recurring pitfalls that applicants must avoid when preparing an inland spousal sponsorship file.

1. Why the Application Was Refused

The officer determined that the relationship was not genuine and that the couple was not cohabiting, based on a series of credibility issues:

a. Major inconsistencies during interviews

The couple gave conflicting answers about:

• How the marriage proposal happened

• Their financial arrangements

• Details about their sexual relationship

• Shared assets or responsibilities

• Their daily activities and routines

Such discrepancies suggested the couple did not have shared lived experience.

b. Evidence contradicting cohabitation

The officer relied on:

• Applicant’s stepson (his current wife’s son) previously informed a CBSA officer that the applicant did not reside at the claimed address

• The Applicant drove his former spouse’s car, raising questions about separation from the former partner and the authenticity of the current relationship

Cohabitation is central to inland applications, and any contradictions can be damaging.

c. Weak procedural fairness responses

Although the applicant attempted to clarify issues, the officer found these explanations:

• Vague

• Inconsistent

• Not supported by documentation

The Court agreed that officers are not required to accept unsupported explanations.

2. What the Federal Court Concluded

Justice Conroy upheld the refusal, finding that:

• The officer’s reasons were transparent, intelligible, and justified

• The decision fell within a reasonable range of outcomes

• There was no procedural unfairness.

The judicial review was dismissed.

Final Thoughts

The Alufa decision is a clear reminder that IRCC officers place great emphasis on credibility, consistency, and cohabitation evidence when assessing inland sponsorship applications. When those elements are missing or contradicted by external information, the refusal is likely to be upheld by the Court.

For applicants and representatives, this case underscores the importance of preparing a coherent, well-documented, and internally consistent application that can withstand detailed review.

If you would like help strengthening your inland spousal sponsorship package or responding to fairness letters, feel free to connect.