Problem
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 traveller who identifies as part of the LGBTQ+ community. While travelling, 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.
Task I: To identify one Federal Court decision that would support the Appellant's appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
i. Case to be the one widely cited (that is, being cited at least 5 times by a court or tribunal, preferably more)
ii. Explanation of why selected that decision. In explanation:
a. Identify how the facts in selected decision align with the Appellant's.
b. Identify the legal principle(s) from the case that would assist the Appellant.
c. Apply the principle(s) to the Appellant's facts to show how to advocate to the IAD to allow the appeal.
Task II: To identify one Federal Court decision that would support the position of the Minister's counsel.
i. Case to be the one widely cited (that is, being cited at least 5 times by a court or tribunal, preferably more)
ii. Explanation of why selected the decision. In explanation:
a. Identify how the facts in selected decision would support the Minister in advocating to dismiss the appeal.
b. Identify the legal principle(s) from the case that would have assisted the Minister.
c. Apply that principle(s) to the Minister's position to show how the Minister would advocate to the IAD to dismiss the appeal.
Task III: What new evidence can Sarah and Zahra provide to support their appeal to the IAD and what weight should be given to this evidence. Focus should be on analysis on why the evidence would be useful in granting the appeal.