I see my original thread has gotten hijacked by a couple of others with unrelated cases, curious why you wouldn't start your own thread.. but I hereby reclaim my original topic and give those interested an update...
I am very happy to announce that this morning at our IAD hearing, our Appeal was allowed, and my partner can now move forward to becoming a permanent resident. I as the Sponsor, prepared our own defense, with my only legal assistance coming from Perplexity AI (my preferred AI choice), and I emphasize it was A LOT OF HELP!! With their help, I put together a 253 page Disclosure submission which included arguments including:
- a legal error by applying an outdated barrier requirement - Carriere v. Canada (2018)
- procedural unfairness in two important respects: The officer ignored my explicit written request to participate in both PR interviews to assist with complex questions about Canadian law, and engaging in biased and inappropriate questioning about third-country marriage options, that is not found in law and that violates IRB Guideline 9
- the officer systematically mischaracterized the evidence. She described our 50,000-message, 5.5-year chat log as being "generally more sexually intimate than emotionally intimate" — a characterization that two independent AI analyses show is factually incorrect.
- the officer gave unreasonable weight to irrelevant factors — most significantly, the 41-year age difference between my partner and myself, which was referenced no fewer than six times in the GCMS Notes and used to frame photographic evidence as showing we were "not compatible."
- the officer unreasonably characterized my departure from Vietnam in June 2020 as a voluntary choice reflecting insufficient commitment — when the documentary record clearly establishes that I was forced to leave and return home due to the impact of the global COVID pandemic
- to give a little more context, in our 7.5 year relationship, we have managed to cohabit in Vietnam a total of 31 months (never more than 7 months at a time), including a 29 month separation because of COVID travel restrictions.
Putting this all together took months of tedious work by myself witih my partner's help, trying to organize it all properly. I know many say that using AI for something technically legal such as this can be dangerous, but I was thorough and careful in my fact-checking of any legal documentation I was presented with and was satisfied that it was a well put together document.
At the hearing this morning, I was prepared to present my partner as a witness to give testimony, I was advised by IAD to plan on a full day hearing with myself only in the morning and my witness in the afternoon. After a few procedural matters were taken care of at the start of the hearing, I was allowed to read a prepared opening statement, about 7 or 8 minutes long. At the end of the statement, the IRCC legal rep stated that he totally agreed with my request that the Appeal be allowed. That was it, no questions from him or the Tribunal Member, The Member said a few words, concurring with the IRCC rep and the hearing was finished in under 20 minutes.
I was shocked! I wasn't really shocked by the end result, but I was shocked by the fact that the Early Resolution Process was not used in our case. I was surprised and disappointed back in January when there was no indication that process would be attempted, so I was VERY surprised (happily) to hear the response from the IRCC rep at the hearing this morning. When I realized what was happening, I bit my tongue and stayed silent while I was thinking 'Why the f$%k didn't you make use of the ERO in our case when by all appearances it was a prime candidate?'
The reality is still sinking in, and we're waiting to get official notification so we can go on to the next steps, which will include having another medical exam as the previous one was more than 12 months ago, submitting passport for PR visa, etc.
Many thanks to all of you who contributed in a useful way.
