Had an appeal against the refusal of a spousal sponsorship. The hearing was held today via videoconference with the Board Member. In reviewing case law the night before, the following seemed to be helpful:
In today's case, an argument could be made that the marriage was entered into by the overseas spouse for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Act (immigrating to Canada to rejoin his family members here). Nevertheless, the evidence as to the genuineness of the marriage was clear ... and arguably, while it was a 'bonus' for the overseas spouse to rejoin his other family in Canada, the preponderence of evidence did not indicate that this was the 'primary' purpose.
I also came across the following:
My common practice is to call both the appellant and the applicant to testify as to the intentions of both parties as to the genuiness of the marriage.
It's impossible (in my experience) to have completely matching viva voce evidence. Exactitude is not required ... and some inconsistences can be explained. The evidence should match on "important areas".