hi dearTaycaoco said:
we won on 09th Sep 2014. and yes the panel has told lik that & but he has told that he would give the priority for our case. & i also hope that it will be ended up within 4 months
you are correct only we suffer not them right?
ALL SPOUSE APPEAL CASES COME HERE AND JOIN US PLZ
- Thread starter love bird 43
- Start date
we won on 09th Sep 2014. and yes the panel has told lik that & but he has told that he would give the priority for our case. & i also hope that it will be ended up within 4 months
you are correct only we suffer not them right?
you have to appeal from Canadaja_007 said:
it will depend on their case situation - they will decide whether they will get an ADR or A FULL HEARING
They can appeal without any lawyer
but according to their grounds of refusal they should know whether they can face without any lawyer or not my husband did his ADR conference alone and i did all the paper work alone without any lawyer or consultant
careful some people will give you some wrong ideas i'm telling these bcoz some of in this forum told me that i cannot submit any of new records or evidence which i have not submitted to the immigration yet. but i sent all my new evidences and also my husband started another job before one month from the ADR and the ministers counsel also had told my husband that my husband has done a good job by doing 2-3 jobs in a little period so, we have to send enough evidences as much as we can they will not put them aside but they need the proofs thats it
wish them be success
hi forum members
we got through the ADR
And i need to know whether my son need to do the police clearance as he is now 18 years old
plzzz reply thanx
we got through the ADR
And i need to know whether my son need to do the police clearance as he is now 18 years old
plzzz reply thanx
Yes he will have to do police clearance,and some forms he will have to full up his own like my daughter who is 19 now.Gango is waiting said:
thank you Stressed wifeStressed wife said:
and do you know the panel has told my husband that he will give priority to our case after my husband asked him about the time period after the appeal was allowed, so, theres a child directly affected by the decision too bcoz of that he has told like this. so, what do you think ? will the visa post take my file and finalize it sooner?
anybody who knows about this please help thanx
It's not a problem that your child is 18, they will just ask him to fill some forms like yours and ask him to do police clearance e because he is 18, that would make him any reason to not go to Canada, so even if they speed up your process or not, it's ok. He will get to go Canada, as long as his pol clearance and meds are fine, don't worryGango is waiting said:
thanx againStressed wife said:
no dear i meant not that child who is 18 years theres another one who is 4+ . bcoz of that child we got priority for our case panel has told my husband. so, i just need to know whether the visa post will speedup our process or not bcoz, normally it will take another 6 months. and also he has told my husband that to do the police clearance and not to do the medical till they request from me.. thanx dear for replying me... if you have any idea plzzz let me know
Re: ALL SPOUSE APPEAL CASES COME HERE AfiND JOIN US PLZ
IAD.34 (October 2007)
Disponible en français
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
Client ID no. / No ID client : 4121-8054
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision
SPONSORSHIP
Appellant(s) Taslim Ahmed PATEL Appelant(s)
and et
Respondent The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Intimé(e)
Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration
Date(s) and Place of 15 April 2008 Date(s) et lieu de
Hearing Vancouver, BC l’audience
Date of Decision 19 May 2008 Date de la décision
Panel Renee Miller Tribunal
Counsel for the Conseil(s) de
Appellant(s) Massood Joomratty l’appelant(e) / des
Barrister and Solicitor appellant(e)(s)
Counsel for the Minister Kevin Hatch Conseil du ministre
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
1
Reasons for Decision
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons and decision in the appeal of Taslim Ahmed PATEL (the
“appellant”) who appeals the refusal to approve the permanent resident application made by her
spouse, Mohmedzuber Vali KHOKHAR (the “applicant”), to immigrate to Canada as a member
of the family class.
[2] The couple married in India on January 29, 2006. The appellant subsequently applied to
sponsor her husband for immigration to Canada. The applicant was interviewed by a visa officer
at the Canadian Embassy in New Delhi, India on October 10, 2006. On December 4, 2006 the
application for a permanent resident visa was refused by a visa officer, pursuant to section 4 of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations”),1 because the visa
officer concluded that the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for the
purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the
“Act”).2
[3] The visa officer set out the grounds for refusal of the application in a letter.3 The visa
officer was concerned about the genuineness of this marriage because:
• the couple appeared to be incompatible as the appellant was divorced and the applicant
never married;
• the marriage was arranged and agreed to prior to the couple meeting, but did not take
place until 6 months after proposal;
• there were insufficient background investigations conducted into the appellant’s marital
history; and
• the applicant had insufficient knowledge of the appellant and her daily life.
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002 – 227.
2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
3 Record, Refusal Letter, pp. 99.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
2
[4] The appellant contends that the refusal is not valid in law, while the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) asks me to dismiss the appeal.
[5] Both the appellant and applicant testified. As well the appellant filed documentary
evidence in the form of Exhibit A–1, which included various documents such as photographs,
telephone records, receipts for purchases and money transfers and confirmation of a visit to India
from November 17, 2007 through December 4, 2007.
ISSUE AND DECISION
[6] To succeed on appeal the appellant must show either that the marriage is genuine or that
it was not entered into for the purpose of the applicant gaining privilege under the Act; that
section 4 of the Regulations does not apply. In my view the appellant has met the burden of
proof in this appeal. The appeal is allowed.
BACKGROUND
[7] By way of background the appellant is 28 years old, was born in India and immigrated to
Canada in July 2000 as a sponsored spouse. She divorced her first husband in July of 2004. The
applicant is 28 years old, was born in India and is a citizen of that country. The applicant had
never married previously. The couple have known each other for many years, as they are first
cousins. The appellant has been living with her now in–laws since they immigrated to Canada
(together in a house owned by the appellant and her Uncle). The applicant was initially included
on his parent’s application to immigrate to Canada, but removed when he did not qualify as a
single, dependent child. The couple’s parents arranged the marriage of the appellant and
applicant, along with the marriage of the appellant’s brother in Canada to the applicant’s sister in
India. The two couples performed a double marriage on January 29, 2006.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
3
ANALYSIS
[8] The marriage of this husband and wife took place in a double wedding with the
appellant’s sister (living in India) and the applicant’s brother (living in Canada). The criss–cross
marriage of two sets of cousin’s, in the circumstances described above was considered
implausible by the visa officer. It is the implausibility of these marriages, in combination with
whether the couple can demonstrate the genuineness of this marriage which remains outstanding
on appeal. The brother and sister’s application for sponsorship was similarly denied by the visa
officer, appealed, and I heard both appeals on the same day.
[9] In assessing the genuineness of a marriage I must consider a broad range of factors
including: how the couple met, how the relationship evolved, the duration of the relationship,
the amount of time spent together prior to the wedding, the nature of the engagement/wedding
ceremony, the intent of the parties to the marriage, the evidence of ongoing contact and
communication before and after the marriage, the spouses conduct after the wedding, the level of
knowledge of each others past, present, and daily lives, the provision of financial support, the
partners families’ knowledge of and involvement in the relationship, and their plans and
arrangements for the future.
[10] I accept the evidence presented by the couple to explain the arrangements for this
marriage as being credible and reliable. After a complicated attempt to chart their family tree it
became clear that the marriage of first cousins is not unusual within this extended family. In fact
the appellant’s own parents are first cousins and there were other examples of first cousin’s
marrying. Although unusual on its face, I accept that the cross marriage of these two sets of
cousins is not as implausible as the visa officer concluded. The couple ably described the
arrangements made by their parents, an uncle in Canada, and the talks leading up to the marriage.
As well, the appellant and applicant participated in a large, elaborate double wedding. The fact
that they are legally married is not challenged.
[11] Documentary evidence of ongoing contact between the two households was provided.
However, that evidence is not fully persuasive or conclusive of ongoing contact between the
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
4
spouses because of the joint family arrangements. The appellant lives with the applicant’s
parents and brother, and has done so since his parents moved to Canada and began living in a
joint household. The applicant lives with the appellant’s sister in the home of their joint
grandparents. Therefore it is not possible to determine with any certainty who is calling whom
in those telephone calls and the documentary evidence does not demonstrate ongoing
communication between these spouses.
[12] Therefore I have looked at the depth of knowledge the couple possess in order to evaluate
the genuineness of this marriage. The appellant was a poor witness. She is not well educated
and demonstrated a lack of sophistication in her answers, but also a lack of knowledge or
questioning of the world beyond her own existence. At several points her evidence was
confusing and inconsistent and she was unable to explain why that was. However, she benefited
by my having heard the appeal of her sister’s application to immigrate. Similarly the sister is
poorly educated and appears to lead a sheltered life. The lack of knowledge about the outside
world and the affairs of their family demonstrated by both sisters lead me to conclude that their
inability to answer questions was in part the result of their upbringing rather than a deliberate
attempt to obfuscate evidence. As well, both the appellant and applicant demonstrated to me that
they placed a lot of trust in the arrangements of their parents. Neither questioned the actions and
decisions of their elders.
[13] For example, during the appeal the appellant incorrectly identified the family name of the
applicant’s father, with whom she lives. She did not know why her father–in–law has a different
family name from her husband or her uncle (the father’s brother). She also seemingly was
unaware of why the applicant’s father uses two different surnames. It is hard to imagine a
scenario where a person would not know the family name of their own uncle and father–in–law,
with whom they live. However, when the applicant testified he too noted that the males in this
family bear two, often interchangeable surnames, and his own father uses both. The applicant
similarly did not know why this was but confirmed the evidence of the appellant. In this instance
the appellant and applicant similarly were relatively unknowledgeable about the affairs of their
elders.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
5
[14] In another instance the appellant and applicant both stated that they discussed only briefly
the circumstances of the appellant’s first marriage and divorce. The appellant’s approach was
that her circumstances were fully known to the applicant’s family, as she lives with his parents
and has done so for several years. The applicant for his part relied on the knowledge of his
parents in arranging the marriage. They both testified that, being cousins, they know the other
person well and their families know all their circumstances and therefore there was little need to
discuss or exchange information about their personal histories.
[15] As another example of the appellant’s lack of sophistication she testified that she co–
owns the house in which she lives, with her husband’s sister and an uncle. However, she could
not tell me anything more about the purchase of that house other than her share of the mortgage.
She does not know how much money was put down on deposit, how much money either of the
other two owners contributed, the amount or any details of their mortgage.
[16] In certain areas the level of knowledge the couple possess about each other was relatively
shallow. For example, as noted above there was no fulsome disclosure by the appellant to the
applicant regarding the circumstances of her marital history and the applicant appeared at
interview and hearing to be relatively uninformed. The appellant relied on her family to disclose
information to him and the applicant similarly relied on his family’s decisions for his marriage.
Similarly, although they knew some information about each other’s hobbies, it was not detailed
information. The appellant knows that the applicant is an avid participant in sports, but not know
which sport, team, or position he plays. The applicant knows the name of the appellant’s best
friend, with whom she works, but not how these two women socialize together. However, the
couple was able to describe social outings they had together, food interests, their work and living
arrangements, and family affairs. They consistently described their activities together when the
appellant visited India (with the applicant’s brother) and their plans for the future.
[17] Typically the lack of detailed knowledge of one’s spouse is not demonstrative of the
genuineness of a marriage. New spouses tend to exchange information about their lives in an
effort to get to know each other and develop a long–lasting relationship. However, these are two
cousins. Cousins who have known each other since their births. Cousins who relied upon the
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
6
decisions of their elders in the arrangements of their marriage. Therefore I accept their
explanations that they relied upon their elders to make decisions on their behalf, and they do not
feel the need to exchange details about their daily lives with each other, because in essence they
feel they already know the other person; having known each other their entire lives and
interacted with on a frequent basis through family. I accept that given the length of time they
have known each other and their own demonstrated reliance on the decisions of elders that the
lack of exchange of information between these two spouses does not undermine a conclusion that
the marriage is genuine.
[18] There were two areas of evidence which was contradictory between the couple: whether
the couple phoned each other in the period between the agreement to wed and the marriage, and
whether the applicant attended the celebration of the appellant’s first marriage in India. Neither
witness was asked to explain their contradictory testimony regarding whether or not the appellant
called the applicant on his mobile prior to the marriage. With regard to the appellant’s first
wedding, the appellant said that her cousin had not been at her first wedding as it had been done
by phone to Canada and there had only been a small celebration. The applicant confirmed that
he had not attended the wedding, but had gone for food at the family party. No further
explanation of the apparently inconsistency of the evidence was sought, but I accept that at the
very least the applicant was not at the actual ceremony of his cousin’s first marriage.
[19] Overall, given my impression that the appellant was not sophisticated and
knowledgeable, and that both the appellant and applicant rely heavily on guidance from family
elders, I am prepared to accept the evidence they have presented as demonstrating a genuine
marriage. The inconsistencies in their evidence were minor in nature and would not be
sufficient, on their own, to undermine other credible evidence. They did not demonstrate a depth
of knowledge that I normally would expect from a genuine spousal relationship, but they had a
reasonable explanation for that lack of knowledge; both their reliance on the decisions of elders
and the fact that they feel they know their spouse already. Those considerations taken together
with the amount of evidence which explained the nature and development of the relationship and
their efforts to communicate and spend time together post–marriage persuades me that this is a
genuine marriage.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
7
[20] Lastly, I have considered the concerns of the visa officer at the interview. The visa
officer concluded that the applicant had insufficient knowledge of his spouse and her history. In
my view, the answers of the applicant to the visa officer are completely consistent with his
testimony at oral hearing. He has limited knowledge. He relied on the decisions of his parents in
arranging the marriage. He does not ask a lot of questions about the appellant’s daily life,
because he already feels he knows her and they talk about family affairs. Although the visa
officer’s suspicions about this marriage were reasonable, given the implausibility of cousins
marrying cousins and the applicant’s lack of knowledge, in my view those concerns have been
adequately addressed in the oral evidence before me. I accept as reasonable the explanations
provided to me for these apparent implausibilities.
[21] I note that the applicant has significant family in Canada, and has attempted to immigrate
to Canada previously. These facts are both indicative that he may have married the appellant
primarily for the purpose of immigrating to Canada. However, as the appellant has satisfactorily
show that her marriage to the applicant is genuine, I do not have to further consider the primary
purpose portion of the test.
[22] Therefore, after assessing all the evidence in the appeal and for the reasons stated above I
find, on a balance of probabilities, that the marriage is genuine and was not entered into
primarily for the purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Act.
CONCLUSION
[23] Accordingly I find that the refusal was not valid in law and the appeal is allowed.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
8
NOTICE OF DECISION
The appeal is allowed. The officer’s decision to refuse a permanent resident visa is set
aside, and the officer must continue to process the application in accordance with the reasons of
the Immigration Appeal Division.
(signed) “Renee Miller”
Renee Miller
19 May 2008
Date (day/month/year)
Judicial review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, you may make an application to the Federal Court for judicial
review of this decision, with leave of that Court. You may wish to get advice from counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this
application.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
Hello Tina yes this is very sad.NDVO already refused my visa .This a order issued by iad so please read this.Tina dhaliwal said:
IAD.34 (October 2007)
Disponible en français
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
Client ID no. / No ID client : 4121-8054
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision
SPONSORSHIP
Appellant(s) Taslim Ahmed PATEL Appelant(s)
and et
Respondent The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Intimé(e)
Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration
Date(s) and Place of 15 April 2008 Date(s) et lieu de
Hearing Vancouver, BC l’audience
Date of Decision 19 May 2008 Date de la décision
Panel Renee Miller Tribunal
Counsel for the Conseil(s) de
Appellant(s) Massood Joomratty l’appelant(e) / des
Barrister and Solicitor appellant(e)(s)
Counsel for the Minister Kevin Hatch Conseil du ministre
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
1
Reasons for Decision
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons and decision in the appeal of Taslim Ahmed PATEL (the
“appellant”) who appeals the refusal to approve the permanent resident application made by her
spouse, Mohmedzuber Vali KHOKHAR (the “applicant”), to immigrate to Canada as a member
of the family class.
[2] The couple married in India on January 29, 2006. The appellant subsequently applied to
sponsor her husband for immigration to Canada. The applicant was interviewed by a visa officer
at the Canadian Embassy in New Delhi, India on October 10, 2006. On December 4, 2006 the
application for a permanent resident visa was refused by a visa officer, pursuant to section 4 of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations”),1 because the visa
officer concluded that the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for the
purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the
“Act”).2
[3] The visa officer set out the grounds for refusal of the application in a letter.3 The visa
officer was concerned about the genuineness of this marriage because:
• the couple appeared to be incompatible as the appellant was divorced and the applicant
never married;
• the marriage was arranged and agreed to prior to the couple meeting, but did not take
place until 6 months after proposal;
• there were insufficient background investigations conducted into the appellant’s marital
history; and
• the applicant had insufficient knowledge of the appellant and her daily life.
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002 – 227.
2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
3 Record, Refusal Letter, pp. 99.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
2
[4] The appellant contends that the refusal is not valid in law, while the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) asks me to dismiss the appeal.
[5] Both the appellant and applicant testified. As well the appellant filed documentary
evidence in the form of Exhibit A–1, which included various documents such as photographs,
telephone records, receipts for purchases and money transfers and confirmation of a visit to India
from November 17, 2007 through December 4, 2007.
ISSUE AND DECISION
[6] To succeed on appeal the appellant must show either that the marriage is genuine or that
it was not entered into for the purpose of the applicant gaining privilege under the Act; that
section 4 of the Regulations does not apply. In my view the appellant has met the burden of
proof in this appeal. The appeal is allowed.
BACKGROUND
[7] By way of background the appellant is 28 years old, was born in India and immigrated to
Canada in July 2000 as a sponsored spouse. She divorced her first husband in July of 2004. The
applicant is 28 years old, was born in India and is a citizen of that country. The applicant had
never married previously. The couple have known each other for many years, as they are first
cousins. The appellant has been living with her now in–laws since they immigrated to Canada
(together in a house owned by the appellant and her Uncle). The applicant was initially included
on his parent’s application to immigrate to Canada, but removed when he did not qualify as a
single, dependent child. The couple’s parents arranged the marriage of the appellant and
applicant, along with the marriage of the appellant’s brother in Canada to the applicant’s sister in
India. The two couples performed a double marriage on January 29, 2006.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
3
ANALYSIS
[8] The marriage of this husband and wife took place in a double wedding with the
appellant’s sister (living in India) and the applicant’s brother (living in Canada). The criss–cross
marriage of two sets of cousin’s, in the circumstances described above was considered
implausible by the visa officer. It is the implausibility of these marriages, in combination with
whether the couple can demonstrate the genuineness of this marriage which remains outstanding
on appeal. The brother and sister’s application for sponsorship was similarly denied by the visa
officer, appealed, and I heard both appeals on the same day.
[9] In assessing the genuineness of a marriage I must consider a broad range of factors
including: how the couple met, how the relationship evolved, the duration of the relationship,
the amount of time spent together prior to the wedding, the nature of the engagement/wedding
ceremony, the intent of the parties to the marriage, the evidence of ongoing contact and
communication before and after the marriage, the spouses conduct after the wedding, the level of
knowledge of each others past, present, and daily lives, the provision of financial support, the
partners families’ knowledge of and involvement in the relationship, and their plans and
arrangements for the future.
[10] I accept the evidence presented by the couple to explain the arrangements for this
marriage as being credible and reliable. After a complicated attempt to chart their family tree it
became clear that the marriage of first cousins is not unusual within this extended family. In fact
the appellant’s own parents are first cousins and there were other examples of first cousin’s
marrying. Although unusual on its face, I accept that the cross marriage of these two sets of
cousins is not as implausible as the visa officer concluded. The couple ably described the
arrangements made by their parents, an uncle in Canada, and the talks leading up to the marriage.
As well, the appellant and applicant participated in a large, elaborate double wedding. The fact
that they are legally married is not challenged.
[11] Documentary evidence of ongoing contact between the two households was provided.
However, that evidence is not fully persuasive or conclusive of ongoing contact between the
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
4
spouses because of the joint family arrangements. The appellant lives with the applicant’s
parents and brother, and has done so since his parents moved to Canada and began living in a
joint household. The applicant lives with the appellant’s sister in the home of their joint
grandparents. Therefore it is not possible to determine with any certainty who is calling whom
in those telephone calls and the documentary evidence does not demonstrate ongoing
communication between these spouses.
[12] Therefore I have looked at the depth of knowledge the couple possess in order to evaluate
the genuineness of this marriage. The appellant was a poor witness. She is not well educated
and demonstrated a lack of sophistication in her answers, but also a lack of knowledge or
questioning of the world beyond her own existence. At several points her evidence was
confusing and inconsistent and she was unable to explain why that was. However, she benefited
by my having heard the appeal of her sister’s application to immigrate. Similarly the sister is
poorly educated and appears to lead a sheltered life. The lack of knowledge about the outside
world and the affairs of their family demonstrated by both sisters lead me to conclude that their
inability to answer questions was in part the result of their upbringing rather than a deliberate
attempt to obfuscate evidence. As well, both the appellant and applicant demonstrated to me that
they placed a lot of trust in the arrangements of their parents. Neither questioned the actions and
decisions of their elders.
[13] For example, during the appeal the appellant incorrectly identified the family name of the
applicant’s father, with whom she lives. She did not know why her father–in–law has a different
family name from her husband or her uncle (the father’s brother). She also seemingly was
unaware of why the applicant’s father uses two different surnames. It is hard to imagine a
scenario where a person would not know the family name of their own uncle and father–in–law,
with whom they live. However, when the applicant testified he too noted that the males in this
family bear two, often interchangeable surnames, and his own father uses both. The applicant
similarly did not know why this was but confirmed the evidence of the appellant. In this instance
the appellant and applicant similarly were relatively unknowledgeable about the affairs of their
elders.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
5
[14] In another instance the appellant and applicant both stated that they discussed only briefly
the circumstances of the appellant’s first marriage and divorce. The appellant’s approach was
that her circumstances were fully known to the applicant’s family, as she lives with his parents
and has done so for several years. The applicant for his part relied on the knowledge of his
parents in arranging the marriage. They both testified that, being cousins, they know the other
person well and their families know all their circumstances and therefore there was little need to
discuss or exchange information about their personal histories.
[15] As another example of the appellant’s lack of sophistication she testified that she co–
owns the house in which she lives, with her husband’s sister and an uncle. However, she could
not tell me anything more about the purchase of that house other than her share of the mortgage.
She does not know how much money was put down on deposit, how much money either of the
other two owners contributed, the amount or any details of their mortgage.
[16] In certain areas the level of knowledge the couple possess about each other was relatively
shallow. For example, as noted above there was no fulsome disclosure by the appellant to the
applicant regarding the circumstances of her marital history and the applicant appeared at
interview and hearing to be relatively uninformed. The appellant relied on her family to disclose
information to him and the applicant similarly relied on his family’s decisions for his marriage.
Similarly, although they knew some information about each other’s hobbies, it was not detailed
information. The appellant knows that the applicant is an avid participant in sports, but not know
which sport, team, or position he plays. The applicant knows the name of the appellant’s best
friend, with whom she works, but not how these two women socialize together. However, the
couple was able to describe social outings they had together, food interests, their work and living
arrangements, and family affairs. They consistently described their activities together when the
appellant visited India (with the applicant’s brother) and their plans for the future.
[17] Typically the lack of detailed knowledge of one’s spouse is not demonstrative of the
genuineness of a marriage. New spouses tend to exchange information about their lives in an
effort to get to know each other and develop a long–lasting relationship. However, these are two
cousins. Cousins who have known each other since their births. Cousins who relied upon the
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
6
decisions of their elders in the arrangements of their marriage. Therefore I accept their
explanations that they relied upon their elders to make decisions on their behalf, and they do not
feel the need to exchange details about their daily lives with each other, because in essence they
feel they already know the other person; having known each other their entire lives and
interacted with on a frequent basis through family. I accept that given the length of time they
have known each other and their own demonstrated reliance on the decisions of elders that the
lack of exchange of information between these two spouses does not undermine a conclusion that
the marriage is genuine.
[18] There were two areas of evidence which was contradictory between the couple: whether
the couple phoned each other in the period between the agreement to wed and the marriage, and
whether the applicant attended the celebration of the appellant’s first marriage in India. Neither
witness was asked to explain their contradictory testimony regarding whether or not the appellant
called the applicant on his mobile prior to the marriage. With regard to the appellant’s first
wedding, the appellant said that her cousin had not been at her first wedding as it had been done
by phone to Canada and there had only been a small celebration. The applicant confirmed that
he had not attended the wedding, but had gone for food at the family party. No further
explanation of the apparently inconsistency of the evidence was sought, but I accept that at the
very least the applicant was not at the actual ceremony of his cousin’s first marriage.
[19] Overall, given my impression that the appellant was not sophisticated and
knowledgeable, and that both the appellant and applicant rely heavily on guidance from family
elders, I am prepared to accept the evidence they have presented as demonstrating a genuine
marriage. The inconsistencies in their evidence were minor in nature and would not be
sufficient, on their own, to undermine other credible evidence. They did not demonstrate a depth
of knowledge that I normally would expect from a genuine spousal relationship, but they had a
reasonable explanation for that lack of knowledge; both their reliance on the decisions of elders
and the fact that they feel they know their spouse already. Those considerations taken together
with the amount of evidence which explained the nature and development of the relationship and
their efforts to communicate and spend time together post–marriage persuades me that this is a
genuine marriage.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
7
[20] Lastly, I have considered the concerns of the visa officer at the interview. The visa
officer concluded that the applicant had insufficient knowledge of his spouse and her history. In
my view, the answers of the applicant to the visa officer are completely consistent with his
testimony at oral hearing. He has limited knowledge. He relied on the decisions of his parents in
arranging the marriage. He does not ask a lot of questions about the appellant’s daily life,
because he already feels he knows her and they talk about family affairs. Although the visa
officer’s suspicions about this marriage were reasonable, given the implausibility of cousins
marrying cousins and the applicant’s lack of knowledge, in my view those concerns have been
adequately addressed in the oral evidence before me. I accept as reasonable the explanations
provided to me for these apparent implausibilities.
[21] I note that the applicant has significant family in Canada, and has attempted to immigrate
to Canada previously. These facts are both indicative that he may have married the appellant
primarily for the purpose of immigrating to Canada. However, as the appellant has satisfactorily
show that her marriage to the applicant is genuine, I do not have to further consider the primary
purpose portion of the test.
[22] Therefore, after assessing all the evidence in the appeal and for the reasons stated above I
find, on a balance of probabilities, that the marriage is genuine and was not entered into
primarily for the purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Act.
CONCLUSION
[23] Accordingly I find that the refusal was not valid in law and the appeal is allowed.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI : VA7-00281
8
NOTICE OF DECISION
The appeal is allowed. The officer’s decision to refuse a permanent resident visa is set
aside, and the officer must continue to process the application in accordance with the reasons of
the Immigration Appeal Division.
(signed) “Renee Miller”
Renee Miller
19 May 2008
Date (day/month/year)
Judicial review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, you may make an application to the Federal Court for judicial
review of this decision, with leave of that Court. You may wish to get advice from counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this
application.
2008 CanLII 75492 (CA IRB)
ja_007
Star Member
- Oct 22, 2013
- 3
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Chandigarh
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- May 05th, 2013
- AOR Received.
- May 08th, 2013
- File Transfer...
- June 05th, 2013
- Interview........
- Recommended (Date: April 7th, 2014) DONE: e-cas "Decision Made"
- Passport Req..
- June 14, 2013(found out Feb. 24,2014)
- VISA ISSUED...
- April 28, 2014
- LANDED..........
- May 05, 2014
Hello,Gango is waiting said:
Thank you for the reply. But a few more concerns I have;
1. Compared to a 13 month wait period for a processing time of the application in India for family class sponsorship. Is there an expected wait period for a appeal case?
2. How exactly does one go forward with an appeal case? Is there a form(s) to fill out and submit? If so, how can we access them?
Please let me know. Thank you kindly.
Cheers.
hija_007 said:
no worries to help someone
please someone correct me if i'm wrong
the time period will be changed because of the appeal. our time period is 2 years for my country but it is almost 4 years since I applied my application. mostly Vancouver time period is shorter than the Toronto
when they reject someone they send a letter to the applicant and as well as to the sponsor and they send the appeal form with the letter. but anybody can download the appeal form from internet and fill it by the sponsor and have to submit to the IAD office within 30 days after the sponsor received the letter. anybody can post the appeal form or hand it over to the IAD office
appeal form --
http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/res/form/Pages/IadSai428Intro.aspx
MrsTrejo
Star Member
- May 8, 2014
- 0
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Havana, CU
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- March 2013
- File Transfer...
- April 2013
- Interview........
- November 21, 2013 - Denied
- Passport Req..
- Appealed - January 2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- ADR unsuccessful - November 19
Hello everyone!
It has been awhile.
I finally got my ADR date (actually it wasn't that long of a wait since finding out I was getting my ADR) it is scheduled for November19th.
Can anyone please give me info on what I should be preparing for? Questions, etc.
Also what things I should be sending in before my hearing?
I got letters from family and friends in Cuba that are in Spanish. Do they need to be translated by a professional?
Any input will help. Thanks!
It has been awhile.
I finally got my ADR date (actually it wasn't that long of a wait since finding out I was getting my ADR) it is scheduled for November19th.
Can anyone please give me info on what I should be preparing for? Questions, etc.
Also what things I should be sending in before my hearing?
I got letters from family and friends in Cuba that are in Spanish. Do they need to be translated by a professional?
Any input will help. Thanks!
MrsTrejo
Star Member
- May 8, 2014
- 0
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Havana, CU
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- March 2013
- File Transfer...
- April 2013
- Interview........
- November 21, 2013 - Denied
- Passport Req..
- Appealed - January 2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- ADR unsuccessful - November 19
ja_007
Star Member
- Oct 22, 2013
- 3
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Chandigarh
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- May 05th, 2013
- AOR Received.
- May 08th, 2013
- File Transfer...
- June 05th, 2013
- Interview........
- Recommended (Date: April 7th, 2014) DONE: e-cas "Decision Made"
- Passport Req..
- June 14, 2013(found out Feb. 24,2014)
- VISA ISSUED...
- April 28, 2014
- LANDED..........
- May 05, 2014
Thanks again for the reply. Again, a few more questions;Gango is waiting said:
1. You appealed your case 4 years ago, but the processing wait is 2 years? Or is it that you originally applied to sponsor your better half 4 years ago? Also, what country is your better half from that you are sponsoring?
2. Thanks for the link, I've read through some of it, and it says that we will require a "counsel" to represent us, is that implying an immigration lawyer?
no dear my husband applies our sponsorship application in 2010. we refused in last November & we applied for the appeal in last January. we had the ADR conference on 09th Sep 2014. we won the ADR.ja_007 said:
our processing time for our country was 18 months those days. but bcoz of some reasons it took already 4 years for now & also we have to wait another 4-6 months waiting time for end of process
you dont need a counsel or lawyer if you have enough confidence to face it bcoz my husband faced alone before them. bcoz we had enough proofs & also all of them were true & correct so, my husband did not afraid to face it without anybody. actually we were refused bcoz of the financial reason. we did it well
and also the letter has mentioned that we dont need to represent a counsel or a lawyer