Need to write legal memo on this need help with that?

You have recently started working an Immigration Law Firm, Kason & Kason ("K & K").A lawyer there has asked you to draft a legal memo about the couple's immigration issues, Mr. & Mrs. Ghosh. ArvindaGhoshis a Canadian Citizen. She is trying to sponsor her husband, SubrataGhosh, a citizen of Bangladesh.Alas, the Officer assessing their case found that the primary purpose Subrata married Arvinda was forimmigration purposes.The officer did not really assess whether the marriage was genuine, but presumed it was genuine after learning Mrs. Ghoshwas pregnant with the couple's first child. The couple come from different backgrounds. Mrs. Ghoshisoriginally from India, but was adopted and raised by a Canadian couple, who sponsored her as a child.She was a devout Christian.Mr. GhoshSubrata wasbornand raised by adevout Hindufamily in Bangladesh.He converted to Christianity soon after his arrival in Canada.His mother tongue is Bengali.

The negative spousal sponsorship decision focused on the primary purpose aspect of the test under section 4 (1) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Regulation.The Officer noted the fact that Mr. Ghoshhad previously been denied a visitor's visa before being granted a student's visa to study engineering in Canada.Also that he sought refugee protection soon (two months) after his arrival into Canada.The Refugee Protection Division (Board/RPD) denied his claim some months later.He appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), but the RAD upheld the negative refugee claim determination, which was rendered 9 days ago.

The couple met shortly after the RPD's denial of Mrs. Ghosh's refugee claim and married following a whirlwind courtship a few days before the RAD hear his appeal of the negative RPD decision.Arvinda immediately sponsored Subrata under the in Canada spousal class.The Officer assessing the spousal application found the pace of their relationship suspicious given that Mr. Ghosh's refugee claim had just been denied.Their different ethnic and religious backgrounds were alsoconsidered.Most problematically, the Officer noted that Subrata's admission that they didn't date very long because he didn't want to get deported before they were able to marry and was worried the appeal to the RAD would be unsuccessful. There were, however, no discrepancies between the couple's answers about where they married and when they first consummated their relationship.Subrata was also insistent at the interview that he loves his wifeand their marriage is real.The couple received this negative decision of the spousal sponsorship application 13 days ago.

As for the RPD and the RAD refusal of her refugee claim, Mr. Ghosh, a citizen of Bangladesh, asserts that he will be persecuted if he returned there (he isn't part of the Muslim majority in Bangladesh and hindu's and christiansexperience persecution there).Also, he has now disappointed his family by marrying a non-hinduwoman from another country without their approval).The Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, denied his claim on the same basis as the RPD had..The RAD upheld the RPD's finding that SubrataGhoshhad not rebutted the presumption of state protection.The RPD also found he was not credible as he gave discrepant answers about the incidents of persecution he experienced as a Hindu in Bangladesh a predominantly Muslim country.Another problem is that he lied to Officers when he first entered Canada at Pearson International Airport.He told authorities at the Port of Entry that he was here to study engineering and no other reason.He also told immigration staff at the airport that he did not require refugee protection.The RPD highlighted these discrepancies and its negative impact on Mr. Ghosh's credibility in its reasons for refusal.