The Appellant is Yong Ming Liu and the respondent is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This is an appeal by Yong MingLiu from a refusal to approve the permanent residence visa application made by his wife, Jun Wang (the Applicant), and the two step-daughters from China, who were sponsored by the Appellant.

Facts from Interview with Appellant

Your client, the Appellant was born in China in 1970 inTianjinCity. He is now a Canadian citizen. This is his third marriage. His first wife was sponsored toCanadaas part of the permanent resident application that he made after receiving refugee status. Your client will testify that the reasons for the divorce from his first wife were that his first wife never adapted to Canada; she was unable to find a job; and, she had very different expectations about her life inCanada. He will state that he now very rarely keeps in touch with his first wife after the divorce and on the occasion that he does, he does it only for the child of that marriage. After the divorce they obtained joint custody of their daughter, who was born in 1997. Currently, the daughter resides with her mother.

The Appellant was married a second time from August 2009 to August 2012. He sponsored his second wife in an inland application. The application was refused because the visa officer found that there were not sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to allow her to make an inland sponsorship application inCanadaand that she had to return toChinato apply. There are, however, notes from the visa officer that the visa post found the marriage to bebona fide.With respect to these CAIPS notes of the immigration history of his second wife, she was not at the IAD hearing to explain the inconsistencies arising in the CAIPS notes concerning the reasons for the dissolution of her marriage with your client.

It was the opinion of the visa officer who interviewed the second ex-wife in March 2017 that she was not truthful at the interview.According to the 2011 CAIPS notes, the second ex-wife stated that she was the one who broke up with your client because he did not sever his relationship with his ex-girlfriend; however, it is your client's story that is consistent with the divorce petition, which states that he was the one who petitioned for divorce on grounds of the ex-wife's adultery.

Your client says was introduced to his current wife by his cousin in November 2014, who had known her since 2006.You are concerned about the amount of time it took for your client to make a marriage proposal (in September 2016) after first being introduced to his current wife. Your client explains, the introduction was made by the cousin in November 2014; the Appellant met the Applicant in person in February 2015 and they spent one month together in China. You client brought his daughter to China in February 2015 to meet the Applicant and her children. Both sets of children engaged in activities together such as skiing, and, there are also photographs to confirm these shared activities during the month-long visit in February 2015. The photos appear genuine to you.The marriage proposal took place approximately eight months after the first meeting in person. Following the first meeting in February 2015, they continued to communicate by telephone and Skype. Your client and his wife share a similar cultural background, a common dialect and similar hobbies.

Your client says the marriage reception was well attended by family, but he had to explain why his father and his daughter did not attend. The father was not well, and the daughter stayed with him to take care of him. You client says he returned toChinathree times after he was married. He returned in July 2015, July 2016 and June 2017, and on each of these visits he stayed a lengthy amount of time of approximately one month. He also says he has had a good conjugal life with his wife during the three trips to China to visit her.

You client says his wife has a stable job inChinawith a good income by their standards, and her two daughters are preparing for university. He also says she gave a detailed and consistent response at the visa post interview as to why she does not need to seek immigration by way of marriage.

Respondent Position

Counsel for the Minister intends to argue that the officer who refused the visa application made by the wife and the two step-daughters from China made the correct decision.

The visa officer concluded that the wife's decision to immigrate to Canada was made before the marriage and not after; that the marriage was entered by the wife to gain immigration to Canada, and not because the marriage was genuine. Counsel intends to focus on the issue of credibility of the Appellant; that he entered the marriage genuinely, given the facts surrounding the failures of his first two marriages, and the fact that he always returned to China to find a wife. In each case he represented a 'ticket to Canada' as an inducement to attract a Chinese wife.

Counsel also intends to point out two inconsistencies raised by the visa officer to attack Liu's credibility. For one, counsel will point out that the Chinese visa he obtained with two entries was obtained approximately one day after the marriage proposal, contradicting his testimony in the interview that he did not obtain an expedited visa, nor did he contemplate a honeymoon outside ofChina. Secondly, the separation date in his first divorce petition pre-dates the actual separation date leading to the dissolution of the marriage.