http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/03/21/arranged-marriage-noor-returns.html
Apparently she's gone home.
I want to correct my earlier post. According to Section 63(2) of the Act:
(2) A foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision at an examination or admissibility hearing to make a removal order against them.
So she "may" have had the right of appeal. However, Section 126 of the Regulations says:
126. A decision shall not be made on an application for permanent residence by a foreign national as a member of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class if the sponsor withdraws their sponsorship application in respect of that foreign national.
In this case, the visa had already been issued but, according to the story, the husband withdrew his sponsorship a month before she arrived.
This is where we are not sure what happened. Section 120(b) says:
(b) a foreign national who makes an application as a member of the family class and their accompanying family members shall not become permanent residents unless a sponsorship undertaking in respect of the foreign national and those family members is in effect and the sponsor who gave that undertaking still meets the requirements of section 133 and, if applicable, section 137.
IP 2 says on page 25:
However, a sponsor’s request to withdraw an undertaking may be considered as
evidence that the sponsor will not honour it. This information will be considered at
POE and the applicant may not be granted permanent residence on the basis that
circumstances have changed with respect to their application. Should this occur, this
does not mean that the sponsor may withdraw their application nor that a decision
has been made with respect to their request to withdraw.
So there's some contract law thrown in. The Undertaking is a contract between the Sponsor, Applicant and CIC. It seems that CIC has taken the position that the Sponsor will not honour the contract and didn't land the applicant. But then it circles back to 63(2) of the Act. Complicated stuff! I'm going to check to see if there is some case law on it because it then doesn't say what discretion CIC or CBSA has at that point.