GDipICL Case Brief Template

Style of Cause Vigo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Citation Vigo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 CanLII 129985 (CA IRB (IAD))

Procedural History if any (with prior and subsequent outcomes):

Here, indicate whether the case was appealed, or if it was itself the appeal of an earlier appeal, and the outcome at each
level.

This is an appeal to Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada with NO Procedural history
Facts
Here, you can also set out the names of the parties, and even short forms for those names, if it makes it easier for you to
refer to them in subsequent descriptions.

Appellant: Katherina Yzabel Layza Vigo (K.Vigo) applied for PR in May 2004 when she was single and with no
dependants.(Paragraph10)
Applicant: Mauro Cesar Aldea Cruzado (M.Cruzado) (husband)(common-law partner) seeking PR
status(spousal) , both appellant and Applicant met around same time in Wisconsin, USA
K.Vigo overstayed her visit to USA.
On 30th October 2006, Canadian PR granted to K.Vigo with validity till 25th April 2007. Later K.Vigo contacted
and informed Canadian Immigration officials about her relationship history and her pregnancy.
Canadian Immigration officials advised she needs to submit new application with her common-law partner.
But K.Vigo gave birth to her daughter on 15th February 2007 in Wisconsin and then landed in Canada as PR
on 21st April 2007 on same visa that was issued on 30th October 2006.
K.Vigo applied for sponsorship for her common-law partner and daughter in November 2007 but the
application was denied. [Paragraph 10]
K.Vigo and M.Cruzado got married on 20th September 2013.[Paragraph 10]
K.Vigo became Canadian Citizen in January 2015.[Paragraph 10]
On 16th October K.Vigo filed notice of appeal to IRB against decision by visa officer to deny/reject PR
application of applicant (M.Cruzado) & their shared daughter (accompanying dependent) under Family Class.
Than on January 31st2018, the appellant filed notice of Constitutional Question.

Issue(s)
Articulate the issue or issues using the word “whether” in the form of a quasi-question. The legal decision maker might
already have done this for you – check the case and look for an issue statement.

The first Issue is whether the applicant is caught by section 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations (IRPR).

Second Issue To determine if there was a breach of K.Vigo's rights under section 7 of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms (the Charter)

Holding (or Disposition):

What was the outcome of the case? You may have several, depending on the number of issues that were decided.
Identify the answer to each issue question you have asked above.

The applicant is found caught by section 117(9)(d) of the IRPR thus appeal is denied. Appellant’s Section
7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) are not engaged by section 117(9)(d) of the IRPR
in conjunction with section 65 of the ACT.

Rule (or Ratio Decidendi)

Identify the legal principles that the legal decision maker applied in order to reach its decision on each issue. These may
come form legislation, from other cases or even form government policy documents. Be sure to refer to a specific
paragraph number where the rule is found and identify the source of the rule (legislation, case law).

As per Ma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 509, on para. 2

Sound judgment or fairness decree’s that in situation like this, the IRB relaxes the the rules of evidence
but evidence when available, then an adverse inference can be drawn.

Reasons
Briefly describe how the court applied the legal rules to the legally relevant facts to answer the issue questions.

The determine whether the applicant was caught by the section 117(9)(d) of the regulations, the panel need
to determine whether the applicant was the common-law partner of the appellant at time of application.
They relied on
 Cai v. Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 816 at para 15.
In April 2006 when Appellant overstayed her visit in Wisconsin, USA. She was being financially supported by
the Applicant as visitors can’t work in US.

Dissent
Record the dissent, if there is one – and identify the paragraph numbers where the dissent is found.
There is no Dissenting opinion found.

Your Observations

K.Vigo should have followed advice from Immigration Officer’s and submitted a new application. She willingly
ignored the advice given to her and proceeded with her landing in Canada as new permanent resident under
economic category. I also think she obtained PR by declaring her marital status as single and could be
grounds for cancelling her Citizenship.