Introduction

Navigating an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) hearing can be an emotionally and legally overwhelming experience, especially when the appeal concerns a refused spousal sponsorship application. The outcome of such an appeal can have a profound impact on an individual's future in Canada, including their ability to reunite with a loved one or establish permanent residence. For appellants, understanding the legal nature and procedural structure of an IAD appeal is not only empowering but essential. Whether you are represented by counsel or appearing on your own, informed preparation can make a significant difference.

This article is a continuation of my series, “Step-by-Step Through the IAD: A Reflective Perspective on Immigration Appeal Hearings,” and shifts focus toward practical, actionable tips. While this guide does not cover every nuance of the IAD process, it aims to provide clear and meaningful insight into how to approach your appeal with greater confidence and clarity.

 

Practical Tip #1: Know When and How to Raise Objections

Understanding objections is essential in an IAD hearing. While the process may feel informal compared to a courtroom, make no mistake: IAD hearings operate under well-established procedural rules. Whether you're represented by counsel or appearing on your own, being able to recognize improper questions and respond appropriately can significantly impact the fairness of your hearing.

At any point during the hearing, either party, whether it’s the appellant’s representative or the Minister’s counsel, may object to a question posed to a witness. In some cases, even the IAD Member may intervene. However, objections must be grounded in proper legal reasoning. A question cannot be objected to simply because it feels uncomfortable or challenging.

When an objection is raised, the Member typically asks for the basis of the objection and may invite a response from the other party. After weighing both sides, the Member decides whether the question may proceed or must be withdrawn.

Below are three common objection types that may arise in spousal sponsorship appeals:

1. Leading Questions

These questions suggest the answer within the question itself. They are generally not allowed during examination-in-chief, though they are permissible during cross-examination to verify the credibility of evidence.

Example:
“You first met your spouse on February 14, 1934, at a wedding, right?”
→ Objection: Leading - This question gives away the answer and unfairly shapes the testimony.

Better approach

“When and where did you first meet your spouse?”

2. Relevance

All questions must be directly connected to the legal issues under appeal. In a spousal sponsorship case, it could mean the focus should remain on whether the relationship is genuine and not entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

Example

“Is it true that you failed school and aren’t good at academics?”

→ This question may appear prejudicial or irrelevant. However, it’s important to consider the intent behind it. Sometimes, opposing counsel may be testing the compatibility of the couple or probing into background differences. That’s why understanding the strategic purpose behind a question is just as important as knowing the objection rules themselves.

 3. Asked and Answered

This objection applies when a question has already been addressed and is being repeated unnecessarily. While limited repetition to assess credibility is allowed, excessive duplication can disrupt the hearing and should be challenged.

 

Practical Tip #2: What to Do If New Refusal Reasons Are Added to Your IAD Appeal

One of the most overlooked yet critically important challenges in an IAD appeal arises when new grounds for refusal are introduced at a later stage, either shortly before the hearing or as part of an amended refusal reasoning. While relatively uncommon, these last-minute additions require immediate and strategic attention, as they can significantly affect the outcome of your appeal and future applications.

Let’s look at a practical example:

Hypothetically, suppose your spousal sponsorship application was initially refused solely under section 130(2) of the IRPR, for instance, because the sponsor was found not to be residing in Canada. However, prior to the hearing, an amended decision adds a second refusal ground under section 4(1) (bad faith).

At this stage, your counsel may object to the addition, arguing that introducing a new refusal ground after the appeal was filed violates procedural fairness, especially if there was no opportunity to respond adequately. The Member may agree and decide not to include section 4(1) as an issue in the current hearing.

However, here’s the risk: even if the new issue is excluded from the appeal, it can still remain a “live issue” for the Minister. If your appeal is allowed and sent back for reconsideration, the visa office can rely on that unaddressed issue, such as bad faith under section 4(1), to refuse the application again. In other words, by not confronting the issue now, you may be leaving the door open to a future refusal.

That’s why experienced counsel often weigh several tactical options:

• Request an adjournment to properly respond to the new issue.
• Ask that the issue not be included, or
• Choose to address it proactively, even if it wasn’t part of the original refusal.

Pro Tip: Conduct a surgical review of the file to anticipate any potential issues that may arise before or during the appeal. Being blindsided by new allegations can be deeply disruptive not just to your case strategy, but to your peace of mind. 

 

Practical Tip #3: How to Avoid Interpreter-Related Issues During Your IAD Hearing

Interpreters play a critical role in IAD hearings, especially in spousal sponsorship appeals where one or more parties are not fluent in English or French. If not properly managed, interpretation issues can lead to miscommunication, disrupted testimony, and unnecessary delays.

Under Rule 53(2) of the IAD Rules, the party requiring an interpreter must notify the IAD at least 20 days before the next scheduled hearing, clearly identifying the language and dialect needed.

During the hearing, the process is structured carefully:

• The Member, Minister’s counsel, or the appellant’s representative will ask a question in English or French.
• The interpreter will translate that for the appellant or witness.
• The witness will respond, and the interpreter will then render the answer back into the chosen language of the hearing.
• This back-and-forth must follow a clear rhythm to avoid confusion or misstatements.

In practice, problems often arise when the appellant becomes emotional or overwhelmed and speaks in long, uninterrupted paragraphs. This makes it difficult for the interpreter to accurately translate, especially if important context or nuance is lost. As a result, interpreters may interrupt frequently or request shorter responses, which can break the appellant’s train of thought or unintentionally alter the tone of their testimony.

 

Practical Tip #4: How to Prepare for Your IAD Testimony

An appellant’s testimony is often the most influential component of an IAD hearing, particularly in spousal sponsorship appeals, where credibility and consistency are closely scrutinized.

One of the most important areas to prepare is the timeline: when the relationship began, how it developed, and the sequence of key events. Naturally, many appellants feel the urge to bring handwritten notes or printouts to assist with recalling dates. However, this is not permitted.

At the IAD, testimony must come directly from the appellant’s memory, not from documents. If a reference is made, normally, the counsel of record or minister can request the member to bring the documents on screen. This ensures fairness and gives the opposing party (usually the Minister’s counsel) an opportunity to review all materials ahead of time.

That said, it’s acceptable to say, “I don’t remember exactly,” while giving testimony.

 

Practical Tip #5: IAD Appeal Strategy: Why Identifying the Real Issue Is the Key to Winning

No matter how well-organized your documents are or how strong your evidence appears, your appeal strategy will fall apart if you misunderstand the central issue. In IAD hearings, identifying the legal and factual issue at the heart of the appeal is not only the first step; it’s the foundation of everything that follows.

As counsel of record, it’s your professional obligation to frame the case around the real concern the Minister or Member is trying to resolve. In spousal sponsorship appeals, for instance, the issue might be:

• Section 4(1): Is the relationship genuine and not entered into primarily for immigration purposes?
• Section 130(2): Has the sponsor demonstrated a clear and credible intention to reside in Canada upon the applicant’s landing?
• Or even: Was there misrepresentation, or insufficient evidence of cohabitation?

Each of these requires a completely different legal approach, set of documents, witness strategy, and supporting case law. You can only evaluate the probative value of your evidence once you’ve clearly defined the issue and aligned your submissions, disclosures, and testimony to directly respond to it.

 

Strategically, it can be helpful to reverse-engineer the case by asking a few key questions:

·      What concern is the refusal letter really raising?

·      How Will the Minister Try to Justify the Refusal?

·      What ruling is the Member being asked to make?

 

Once we’ve clarified the issue, we can build a targeted legal strategy, drawing from relevant legislation, IRB jurisprudence, and persuasive documentation, to not just argue the case but resolve the issues and win the appeal.

 

 Pro Tip: The strongest submissions don’t just tell a story; they solve a legal problem. When you know what that problem is, everything else falls into place.

 

Disclaimer:
This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are those of the author and are based on personal/ professional experience and publicly available sources at the time of writing. Readers should consult official IRB documentation or seek qualified legal counsel for case-specific guidance. The author assumes no liability for actions taken based on the content of this article.

Have questions or need guidance?
Feel free to contact me directly for further discussion or support.
Name: Harpreet Singh 
Contact: Book a consultation at https://www.mggimmigration.com/#contact
WhatsApp text: +16478714537