J.Ahmed, a Canadian citizen, and Shazia, a citizen of Pakistan, were connected through a family friend about two years. They met in person at a community event that Ahmed attended in Lahore, Pakistan when he was visiting his extended family. Shazia had completed her bachelor's degree in Montreal, Quebec, where Ahmed has completed his master's degree, so they connected about their shared experiences about going to school in Canada. They decided to keep in touch by phone after Ahmed returned to Canada.

After six months of phone conversations, Ahmed returned to Pakistan to visit both his family and Shazia. Ahmed and Shazia spent a month together getting to know each other further, and towards the end of Ahmed's trip, they decided that they wanted to get engaged. They had a small engagement ceremony during this trip which was attended by Shazia's family however Ahmed's family from Canada did not attend due to travel costs. Ahmed left Pakistan two days after their engagement ceremony.

Ahmed and Shazia continued to speak by phone but avoided using text messages since it was too expensive. Ahmed started sending money transfers to Shazia each monthly, although in small amounts, since Ahmed was saving his funds to purchase property in Canada.

Ahmed returned to Pakistan two months after the engagement ceremony to get married. Ahmed's siblings were able to attend the ceremony, however neither Ahmed or Shazia's parents came to the wedding. Ahmed's parents did not want to spend the money on travel, and Shazia's parents decided last minute that they did not support the marriage. Ahmed stayed in Pakistan for one week for his wedding and then left to return to Canada due to employment commitments.

Ahmed sponsored Shazia to come to Canada as his spouse 12 months ago. He submitted their application to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) with documentation of their relationship, including boarding passes and visa stamps showing his trips to Pakistan, photographs from their engagement ceremony and wedding, and letters from friends and family attesting to the genuineness of their bond.

However, despite their efforts, the IRCC refused the spousal sponsorship application, citing concerns about the genuineness of their relationship. Some of the reasons for the refusal were as follows:

Lack of Physical Time Spent Together: the IRCC raised concerns that Shazia had never travelled to Canada to visit Ahmed. Furthermore, Ahmed left Pakistan two days after their engagement and one week after their wedding.

Lack of Financial Intermingling: The IRCC raised concerns with the timing of the financial transfers only starting after the engagement, and the small amount of money that was transferred

Timing of Engagement and Marriage: IRCC expressed concerns that the couple did not spend much time in person together prior to getting engaged and married.

Lack of Proof of Communication: The documentation did not include text messages or phone logs showing the type of communication that the couple had during the course of their relationship.

Family members not attending wedding: the IRCC expressed concerns about Ahmed and Shazia's family members not attending the wedding.

Ahmed and Shazia have approached you to ask your advice about filing an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) and are thinking of hiring you to represent them in their appeal. However, before they make a decision, they would like you to provide a written legal opinion about what Federal Court decision could assist in their appeal and what Federal Court decision could hurt their chances on appeal.

write a letter which you are providing to Ahmed and Shazia. Summarize the purpose of your letter and summarize the legal issue for which they are seeking your assistance.

In your letter, identify one Federal Court decision that you believe would support the Appellant's appeal to the ImmigrationAppeal Division (IAD).

1. Choose a case that has been widely cited (that is, being cited at least 5 timesby a court or tribunal, preferably moreuse a citator tool to determine this).
2. Explain why you selected that decision. In your explanation, you must:
   1. Identify how the facts in your selected decision align with the Appellant's.
   2. Identify the legal principle(s) from the case that would assist the Appellant. A legal principle/ratio is defined as a court or tribunal's application of the rule of law to the facts of a case in order to determine the issues and come to a decision; it is a determination that transcends the facts of the case and is also applicable to other cases.
   3. Apply the principle(s) to the Appellant's facts to show how you would advocate to the IAD to allow the appeal.
3. In your letter, identify one Federal Court decision that you believe would support the position of theMinister's counsel.
   1. Choose a case that has been widely cited (that is, being cited at least 5 times by a court or tribunal, preferably moreuse a citator tool to determine this).
   2. Explain why you selected the decision. In your explanation, you must:
      1. Identify how the facts in your selected decision would support the Minister in advocating to dismiss the appeal.
      2. Identify the legal principle(s) from the case that would have assisted the Minister.
      3. Apply that/those legal principle(s) to the Minister's position to show how the Minister would advocate to the IAD to dismiss the appeal.
4. In your letter, identify what new evidence you would recommend that Ahmed and Shazia provide to support their appeal to the IAD and what weight you believe should be given to this evidence. Focus your analysis on why the evidence would be useful in granting the appeal.

The total length of your analysis should be 900-1000 words. Include the total word count at the end of your assignment.