Case Study: Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 600
Federal Court
Estérel, Quebec, April 18, 2024
Background
In 2002, Ms. Nan Tan came to Canada as a temporary resident to study. In 2004, she married a Canadian and was sponsored by her husband for permanent residency, which she obtained in 2005. Ms. Tan was granted a permanent residence status through the spousal sponsorship application. Ms. Tan became a Canadian citizen in 2009. Following her divorce from her first husband, Ms. Tan remarried and had two children with her second husband in Canada.
In 2011, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) began investigating a fraudulent marriage scheme, identifying Ms. Tan as having entered into a fraudulent marriage in 2004. Her first husband provided a statutory declaration confirming that he had been paid to marry Ms. Tan and that their marriage was staged.
In 2015, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) initiated citizenship revocation proceedings against Ms. Tan under the passed new provisions of the Citizenship Act and was said to have obtained citizenship through false representation or fraud. Ms. Tan denied these allegations and challenged the constitutionality of the revocation provisions.

Legal Issues
This matter raised the following legal issues:
- The credibility of Ms. Tan’s Claims: The validity of Ms. Tan’s denial of entering a fraudulent marriage to obtain the integrity of citizenship.
- Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds: Consideration of Ms. Tan’s circumstances, including her roles as a caregiver and her established life in Canada.
- Constitutional Challenges: Whether the citizenship revocation provisions violated paragraph 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and section 7 of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms.
Analysis
- Credibility Assessment:
The Court examined Minister Delegate’s assessment of Ms. Tan’s file and found that “the information on file demonstrated that Ms. Tan misrepresented key aspects of her application for permanent residence by not disclosing she entered into a marriage of convenience for the sole purpose of obtaining immigration status in Canada and that she entered into a non-genuine marriage with her sponsor who admitted to CBSA investigators that he was paid a sum of money to marry and to sponsor Ms. Tan.” The information on file was entered into record via a statutory declaration of the ex-husband.

- Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds:
Guilt/Remorse: The court found that Ms. Tan’s later disclosure of remorse was inappropriate, indicating that she continued to misrepresent over a long period-of-time.
Best Interests of the Children: The Court noted the lack of evidence to support Ms. Tan’s claim of sole custody and considered this matter more appropriate for a removal proceeding should it arise.
Statelessness: The Court rejected Ms. Tan’s possible statelessness, noting that she did not provide evidence to this effect, and she could apply to restore Chinese citizenship.
Establishment in Canada: While acknowledging Ms. Tan’s establishment in Canada, the Court emphasized that it was obtained by fraud and held that the Minister’s Delegate was correct by finding warrant special relief in light of the Canadian public interest to uphold and maintain the integrity of Canada’s immigration and citizenship program.
- Constitutional issues:
The Court ruled that the issue of constitutionality had not been adequately raised before the Ministerial Delegation and that neither paragraph 2(e) of the Bill of Rights nor Section 7 of the Act appeared to have been violated.

The Decision
The Federal Court dismissed Ms. Tan’s application for Judicial review and upheld the decision revoking her Canadian citizenship. The Court concluded that the decision by the Minister’s Delegate was reasonable and that the revocation process did not violate Ms. Tan’s constitutional rights.
Implications
Procedural Fairness: This case highlighted the need for a fair and complete process in citizenship removal cases to ensure that all individual circumstances are properly considered.
Impact on Future Cases: The decision shows that an immigration status obtained by fraud or falsified information like permanent residency or citizenship may be revoked in the future if the truth is revealed. In this regard, poison pen letters may be assigned significant weight in establishing the facts of fraud.
Conclusion In Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court reaffirmed that the rights of individuals and the granting of humanitarian relief should be balanced out with the integrity of Canada’s immigration and citizenship program in case of fraud. Once a fraud or misrepresentation is established in obtaining permanent residence status or acquiring citizenships, humanitarian relief is not lightly warranted.