By Sukhram Ramkissoon

In mid-2013, a young man from the Caribbean – now a Canadian citizen – sponsored his spouse and his 16-year-old stepson to Canada from his country of birth.

I will refer to him as Tahid, whom I represented before the Appeal Division.

In mid-2014 a visa officer after examination of documents and an interview with the applicant formed the opinion that the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily to acquire status under the Act. The officer decided the wife was not a member of the family class and refused the application.

Among the reasons cited by the officer were: (a) inconsistent information about their first contact (b) development of the relationship was vague (c) limited information submitted to substantiate a relationship.

The husband personally filed an appeal before the IAD but soon after retained my services to proceed further.

As a result the matter was referred to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and recently came up for hearing. At this session, Tahid presented evidence and we filed a number of supporting documents to establish that the marriage was indeed genuine.

The minister after reviewing the testimony and documents stated he is satisfied this is a genuine marriage and that the applicant did not marry the appellant (Tahid) primarily for the purpose of acquiring s status or privilege under IRPA.

The minister was of the opinion that Tahid has provided a detailed and credible history of the relationship and has adequately addressed the issues that led to the visa officer’s initial refusal of the application.

He provided details regarding the couple’s introduction and the development of the relationship.

They began communicating in 2011 and were married in June 2013.  He has traveled to visit his spouse on at least three occasions since his wedding.

The applicant has a son from her previous marriage and he provided numerous photographs of the family and documentary evidence to demonstrate that he continues to be in communication with his spouse.

They all intend to live together and his wife will seek employment in the field of taking care of the elderly as she has taken a course for same.

Tahid is established in Canada and is employed on a regular basis with a large electrical company and he was previously married and divorced.

During his ADR hearing he was spontaneous and straightforward and overall appeared to be genuine and credible.

The minister was of the opinion that if this case proceeded to a hearing before the Immigration and Appeal Division, Tahid would likely win his appeal. Consequently, the ADR found that it is not in the public interest to litigate.

The appeal was then allowed by a member of the Immigration Appeal Division.

Sukhram Ramkissoon is a member of ICCRC and specializes in immigration matters at 3089 Bathurst St., Suite 219A, Toronto.  Phone 416-789-5756.