My questions are about the following scenario:

1- Designing the step-by-step conversations of the following scenario in the roles of the appellant counsel to defend the appellant in the tribunal and counsel for the Ministry (respondent) to ask different questions of the appellant and the applicant in the tribunal and the parties in the tribunal and decision in the tribunal for (opening, rebuttal and closing)?

2- What is the theory of the case for each side?

3-What are the issues?

4- How can a counselor for the appellant prove that Amrita and Shakti's marriage is acceptable and how is Shakti's application for permanent residence accepted?

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.