According to the following scenario please answer the questions

1- What should Amrita Kaur Sandhu and Shakti say about themselves to the counselor for the appellant that will have a positive effect on their case and bring them closer to a positive outcome?

2- How can the decision maker make sure that the applicant is

eligible for residency or not?

3- Given the following scenario, how can Amrita Kaur Sandhu and

Shakti prove that their marriage is valid and that Shakti is eligible for

residency?

Appeal of Amrita Kaur Sandhu

(IAD)

The Appellant is Amrita Kaur Sandhu. She is appealing the

refusal to approve the permanent resident application made by her spouse,

Shakti Singh Wander (the Applicant).

The application was refused by the visa officer on the basis

that the marriage is not genuine. The visa officer cited the following reasons

for the refusal:

a) The marriage was an arranged marriage in which compatibility

is an essential element, yet the Appellant and Applicant do not appear to be

compatible in education and social background. The Appellant was born, was

brought up, and was educated in Brunei, has more education than the Applicant,

and is a teacher in Canada. The Applicant is a farmer and has lived all is life

in his native village in India.

b) Circumstances surrounding the marriage raise doubt that the

marriage is genuine: the marriage appears to have been arranged in haste; the

Applicant provided a vague reason for why he and the Appellant consented to the

marriage; the marriage was not performed at the bride's place of residence in

accordance with custom; the Appellant's marriage was arranged before the

marriages of her two older sisters; the Appellant's mother, two sisters and

brother did not attend the marriage; the Appellant only stayed with the

Applicant for ten days following the marriage; and there was no explanation why

the Appellant could not spend more time when she apparently had more time off.

c) The evidence shows that the contact between the Appellant and

Applicant is minimal despite the telephone bills submitted. The Applicant

displayed considerable lack of knowledge about the sponsor; specifically, the

Applicant was not aware that the Appellant's sister was married in January 2009

in Thailand.

d) The visa officer did not find the Applicant to be a credible

person at the interview.

Facts from Interview with

Appellant

Amrita is 26 years old and Shakti is 27 years old. She

immigrated to Canada in 2012 as a dependent child through her father's

sponsorship. She was raised in Brunei. She has two older sisters residing in

Brunei and a younger brother residing in Canada.

Amrita took a trip to India with her father in November 2015.

According to her, she understood the purpose of the trip was for her father to

undergo surgery, to visit her grandparents and to see the country. It was

Amrita's first return trip to India and they had hired a tour guide. She had no

inkling that during this trip to India, her father would introduce her to the

Shakti as a potential marriage partner for a marriage arranged by her father.

According to Amrita, she first met Shakti on November 16, 2015 at the home of

Dr. Jasvir Singh, a mutual family friend of her family and of Shakti's father.

Also present were Amrita's father, and her cousin, sister, and friends. Amrita

and Shakti spent some time together alone during which they discussed their respective

lives. She had approximately two weeks to decide to enter the marriage.

Both she and Shakti have a Sikh cultural background. They were

engaged on November 26, 2015 and entered an arranged marriage on November 29,

2015 according to Sikh customs.

Amrita tells you that there were 1,000 guests at her wedding,

but she does not have any photos that come close to substantiating that number,

although the photos she has does show are characteristic of the atmosphere of

the marriage ceremony.

She shows you photos taken during her honeymoon in 2015 and a

trip she took in 2016 to India. Several photos from the 2016 trip show her,

Shakti and his uncle and aunt visiting a temple. You notice that the photos

from her 2015 trip has her wearing the same cloths as in all three photos from

the 2016 trip.

You ask her about who attended her engagement and marriage

ceremonies and she tells you that her father and Dr. Singh were there. She says

that her mother three sisters were not able to attend. Her mother could not

attend because she had a business to attend to in Brunei, and she does not know

why her siblings did not attend her marriage. She explained that her

relationship with her family was not good.

Amrita was not aware that her elder sister had married in 2016.

The first time she learned about her sister's marriage was after it was

revealed to her at the visa post interview. According to the notes from the

interview, the sister married in Thailand, but her spouse did not want to

sponsor her sister because he learnt that she married him only to enter Canada.

When asked about her lack of knowledge about her sister's marriage, she tells

you that even her mother and other siblings were not aware of the sister's

marriage and that only her father knew about her sister's marriage. She seems

to have only minimal knowledge about her sister's spouse and marriage.

By December 2016, the Amrita's relationship with her mother and

siblings improved as she travelled to Brunei to visit her mother, sisters,

cousins and friends. Yet, even after the improvement in their relationship, she

tells you that she did not ask her family about her elder sister's marriage,

even though this was one of the issues that had been raised earlier at the visa

post interview that formed one of the reasons for the refusal.

Respondent Position

According to the Applicant's answers at the visa post interview,

the marriage was set up two months prior to the marriage date which is before

the Appellant's marriage trip to India, and the marriage was decided on

November 17, 2015, the same day that the Appellant and Applicant were

introduced for the first time. Therefore, the arrangement for the marriage

began without the Appellant's knowledge even before she visited India in

November 2015. This would go against her story that she did not give her

consent until several days after the introduction.

Both the Appellant and Applicant must have bona fide intentions for

a marriage to be genuine. The hastiness of the Applicant's decision to marry

and the lack of attendance from the Appellant's family, relatives and friends

are indicators that the marriage was entered primarily for the Applicant's

immigration. The Applicant will have to testify at the hearing as his testimony

would be crucial in explaining these discrepancies and whether his motivation

for the marriage was for immigration.

There are several instances where the Applicant gave answers at

the visa post interview that demonstrate the Applicant's lack of knowledge

about his spouse's family. For example, the Applicant stated at the interview

that he thinks the Appellant's mother has a carpet business in Brunei whereas

the Appellant stated that her mother owns textile, gas station and restaurant

businesses.

The Appellant arrived in India on November 13, 2015 for the

marriage. After the marriage, the Appellant stayed in India until December 9,

2015 and then flew to Thailand for over a week of vacation with her father.

From Thailand she returned to Canada in December 2015. The Appellant will have

to give a credible answer as to why she did not stay in India to spend more

time with her new spouse if the marriage is indeed genuine.

The other areas where the Appellant is lacking credibility is

the number of guests at the marriage ceremony, and the reason for the lack of

attendance at the marriage by her family, relatives and friends.

The Applicant had demonstrated a desire to enter Canada even

prior to meeting the Appellant. The Applicant had previously applied to enter

Canada through a student visa but was refused due to lack of funds. The

Applicant was unable to answer the question at the visa post interview of what

he had planned to study on the student visa. At the visa interview, the

Appellant also could not answer what the Applicant intended to study in Canada.

She testified that the Applicant was referred by a friend to an educational

program that would facilitate his entry into Canada, only to be a victim of the

program when his tuition fees were absconded by the program. At another point

in the interview, the Appellant stated that she was not even aware that he was

applying for a student visa. This evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the

Applicant's application for a student visa was primarily intended for entry

into Canada for purposes other than for schooling.