Sarah is a citizen of Canada who is a Professor at Queen's University. Sarah has won many prestigious awards and grants for her research. Sarah is an avid traveler who identifies as part of the LGBTQ+ community. While traveling, Sarah often downloads a local app to meet other LGBTQ+ individuals. 

Sarah recently went to Egypt to see the Pyramids and explore Cairo. On her first day in Cairo, Sarah used Tinder to meet other LGBTQ+ individuals. She swiped right on a profile for a woman named Zahra and reached out to Zahra to see if she was interested in meeting in person. Sarah and Zahra met in Downtown Cairo at a Shisha bar and ended up connecting over their love of music and international food. They met up every day for the rest of Sarah's seven-day vacation in Egypt. Upon leaving Egypt, Sarah and Zahra agreed to keep in touch. 

Once back in Canada, Sarah and Zahra spoke every day by phone and texted multiple times a day. Sarah decided to return to Egypt three months later to take Zahra on a trip to Luxor and Sharm El-Sheikh. Sarah financed all expenses required for this trip. They spent two weeks together, and after this trip, they decided to enter into a committed, long-distance relationship. 

After their trip to Luxor and Sharm El-Sheikh, Zahra decided to apply for a visitor visa to Canada to visit Sarah. However, her visa was rejected. As a result, Sarah continued to visit Zahra every six months for approximately two-week trips for the next 18 months. Sarah started to also send sporadic money transfers to Zahra of $50 CAD to help pay for her lifestyle.  

Sarah does not have a Last Will and Testament, however, she does own property in Vancouver and has workplace benefits. 

Sarah introduced Zahra to her parents and two siblings over Zoom. Zahra had not disclosed her sexual orientation to her family and therefore Sarah did not meet her family as her partner, however, Zahra did introduce Sarah as a "friend" during her most recent visit to Egypt. 

Sarah decided to apply to sponsor Zahra as a conjugal partner after they had been in a committed, long-term relationship for a period of two years. She only provided proof of their travels together and proof of communication in support of the sponsorship application. Sarah did not have a representative assist when she filed the application. 

The Visa Office rejected the conjugal sponsorship application and found that there was not sufficient evidence that the Sponsor (Sarah) and the Applicant (Zahra) were in a 'marriage-like' relationship. The Visa Office specifically noted that there was not sufficient proof that this was a relationship beyond simply a 'girlfriend-girlfriend' partnership. 

Sarah and Zahra have approached you to ask your advice about filing an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD). They would like 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 would assist in their appeal and what Federal Court decision would hurt their chances on appeal. They have also asked you for advice about what evidence they could submit in support of the IAD hearing. 

 

 

Detailed Instructions

1. Based on  Federal Court decision in Leroux v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 403 (CanLII) that you believe would support the Appellant's appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
   1. 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 is defined as any statement which is used, along with facts, to reach a conclusion; and 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. 
2. Based on Federal Court decision Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Morel, 2012 FC 1404 (CanLII) that you believe would support the position of the Minister's counsel.
   1. 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 principle(s) to the Minister's position to show how the Minister would advocate to the IAD to dismiss the appeal.
3. Identify what new evidence you would recommend that Sarah and Zahra 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 1000 words. Include the total word count at the end of your assignment.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Federal Court Decision that Supports the Appellants Appeal Leroux v Canada Citizenship and Immigration 2007 FC 403 CanLII Facts Alignment with the Appellants Case In Leroux v Canada the applicant soug... View the full answer