Advice

[Buletruck]

I/We are currently in the processing the PR application for my "common law" spouse. I am Canadian by birth and she is Indonesian. We have been in a relationship since 2011, starting in Indonesia. During my time there, due to employment and religious (I am Ignostic) issues common in the country, we did not live together until early 2014 (March), just prior to my reassignment. After that time I was working in Thailand, where again, the difficulty in attaining a visa for her made it difficult to arrange items like bank accounts, etc to provide proof of the relationship. We do however have a significant history of travel together, being apart only for short times (2-3 weeks maximum twice in the last year, or 1-2 days to satisfy visa requirements in Thailand) along with travel history to Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong dating back to 2012. During my placement in Thailand, she was in country with me all the times I was working there (with exception to those mentioned above) or travelling with me to Canada (we have supporting letters from my co-worker stating that). She has received 3 TRV's since 2012 with myself as her sponsor (2 one time entry and the current 5 year multi entry) as well as a US B1/B2 visa (just received in Indonesia last week). I intend to submit the PR application outland this week, but upon reading a few posts and reviewing OP2 from CIC, I have questions I hope someone can provide some constructive opinions for:

1) The intent was to apply as common law, having fulfilled the requirements and having met the definition of a conjugal relationship. Areas that might pose an issue are joint finances and accounts. We have signed a tenancy agreement in Canada (where I am now based) together, but because she doesn't have a PR, we cannot open a bank account. Same applied in Thailand. Reviewing OP2, we more than qualify for Conjugal partners, having the extensive travel (and supporting documentation), have both a deep knowledge of each others past and having spent significant time with friends and family in both countries. Would it be best to apply this route or continue with the common law application, despite the lack of certain documented proof.

2) As she has a TRV now, would one expect there to be any difficulties in her entering/exiting the country in order to meet the 6 month visa requirements. She has 8 visits to Canada now, leaving within the time she has indicated and a clean immigration record in every other country we have travelled to (no overstays). Is there a risk of her being refused entry if she has the receipts for the PR in her possession at time of entry?

3) Would it be better to submit the application after she lands at the end of this month?

Any advice (except get married...that isn't an option for me) is appreciated.

Thanks

 

[canadianwoman]

Conjugal won't work - you have to prove that you cannot live together for 12 months to become common-law, and that you can't get married. Not wanting to get married is not a good enough reason. Even if there is some other issue preventing marriage, you can live together for 12 months, since you have already done so.
You need proof of the 12 months of cohabitation. Joint bank accounts are not 100% necessary - if you tried but couldn't get one, you can include proof of this refusal in your application. If you do not have proof of 12 months of continuous cohabitation, it is better to wait until you do have it. If she comes to Canada, she can stay with you for 6 months (unless they give her less time at the border). However, this 6-month stay can be extended. She does not have to leave and re-enter.
For common-law, the couple can have a couple of breaks of very short duration and still be considered to be cohabiting. Two weeks would be fine; three weeks is starting to push it - it would depend on the visa officer and the other evidence.
With a TRV, there is slight risk of being denied entry. She must be clear that she is just visiting Canada and will leave before her visa expires. Having proof of the PR application, such as the receipt, is generally seen as good.
Applying now or after she arrives in Canada for a visit probably won't make any difference.

 

[Buletruck]

But we can prove that we couldn't technically live together full time. She wasn't eligible for a visa in Thailand and in Indonesia Common law can result in termination of employment for both of us as well as persecution. Marriage is not a requirement of family class sponsorship, only a "mutual commitment to a shared life at the exclusion of all other conjugal relationships" (OP2: 5.26.a). Again, establishing a relationship prior to the 12 months before the application is submitted is all that is required to confirm a conjugal relationship. As an example, if we were a same sex couple in many places in the world, living together would be impossible, as would marriage. We have, for all intents and purposes, been living together for more than a year, just in various locations.

As for breaks, "short term" is a bit ambiguous. It allows for separation for family issue, work, etc... So my employment is rotational, and amounts to 30 days on, 30 days off. If I were to work and return to live with her (where ever that may be) that would be deemed acceptable. Again, it all seems to go back to previous history and commitment in my mind.

 

[scylla]

No - conjugal won't work for you based on the information you have provided. You can get married (there are no immigration barriers preventing you from doing so). Conjugal is for those who really cannot get married.

If you have been living together for one full year continuously - then you can apply as common law. However you'll have to make sure this cohabitation was continuous. If you were separated for three weeks or more during this period, CIC will most likely say this was a break in continuous cohabitation and your count will have restarted from scratch.

 

[Rob_TO]

But we can prove that we couldn't technically live together full time. She wasn't eligible for a visa in Thailand and in Indonesia Common law can result in termination of employment for both of us as well as persecution. Marriage is not a requirement of family class sponsorship, only a "mutual commitment to a shared life at the exclusion of all other conjugal relationships" (OP2: 5.26.a). Again, establishing a relationship prior to the 12 months before the application is submitted is all that is required to confirm a conjugal relationship. As an example, if we were a same sex couple in many places in the world, living together would be impossible, as would marriage. We have, for all intents and purposes, been living together for more than a year, just in various locations.

If you can get married or can live 12 months continuous together, then you should not try applying as conjugal.
From OP2: If a Canadian and a foreign national can get married or can live together and establish a common-law relationship, this is what they are expected to have done before they submit sponsorship and immigration applications.

There are also many other sentences in the manual where it indicates you should get married or become common-law first if you can. Of course you can still try a conjugal application but you should expect a very long processing time, an interview, and a possible rejection.

As for breaks, "short term" is a bit ambiguous. It allows for separation for family issue, work, etc... So my employment is rotational, and amounts to 30 days on, 30 days off. If I were to work and return to live with her (where ever that may be) that would be deemed acceptable. Again, it all seems to go back to previous history and commitment in my mind.

Unfortunately what you personally see as reasonable based on the wording in the manuals, doesn't mean anything to CIC. All that matters is what the visa officer assigned to your case thinks, and they may view the ambiguous wording much differently than you. There have been cases on here where applicants have been rejected under common-law for having breaks in the cohabitation of around 30 days.

To have a successful common-law app you should have proof of all times of cohabitation with things like joint rental/lease agreements, shared mail going to home, and shared financial accounts showing your common address. You should have this (or variations of this proof) for all places lived in during the 12 months.

For any addresses of cohabitation during the 12 months you don't have proof for, or any long breaks where you were apart (like 3-4 weeks or more), you should understand that a visa officer can reject your app based on this. They may or they may not, it really depends on the personality of the visa officer you get.

Of course if rejected you always have chance to appeal, but that can add years to your overall processing time and cost a lot in lawyer fees. If you can, you should really just get married and apply as that will eliminate so many potential things that can possibly go wrong with your common-law or conjugal app.

 

[Buletruck]

Not trying to be obstinate, but I am not quite sure why there is such a focus on "getting married" with everyone on this forum. At the risk of being redundant, being married is not a requirement for spousal sponsorship. The supreme court has already rules that the choice to marry or not marry is protected under the Charter of Rights. Fact is, we are living together 343 days in the last year, are exclusive, have intimate knowledge of each others past, habits, family and friends and extensive relationship and travel history together going back to 2011.
For your reference, marriage between Muslims and non Muslims is near impossible to achieve in Indonesia. As for marriage in Thailand, foreigners require, essentially approval from your consulate/embassy in Thailand, which is again nearly impossible to get from Indonesia unless you are of the same religion.

Looks like I'll continue with the Common Law application.

Thanks for you perspectives.......

 

[Rob_TO]

Not trying to be obstinate, but I am not quite sure why there is such a focus on "getting married" with everyone on this forum.

Because the focus is based on what has actually happened to many applicants that have posted their stories on their attempted conjugal apps when they could have gotten married, and common-law apps with periods of breaks of lack of proof of cohabitation.

To repeat, whatever you personally feel is right or justified, is completely irrelevant to CIC as any visa officer can reject your application for any reason they deem fit based on the ambiguous working in the OP manuals. Sure if your case is rejected you may eventually "win" in the end by taking a few extra years and thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to appeal through the courts, but that is not a path anyone wants. Really the easiest and quickest way is just to present an application that has the least chance for refusal... and in your case that would be to get married in any country that you can if you can't do where you are now.

You should read through the appeals thread and see all the reasons people have been rejected. CIC can be seemingly heartless at times and reject apps based on the tiniest of interpretations in the manual, or due to the personal feeling of the visa officer. Just because you have a real relationship, doesn't mean you are guaranteed to be approved. This is the reality of how CIC operates.

 

[scylla]

Because the focus is based on what has actually happened to many applicants that have posted their stories on their attempted conjugal apps when they could have gotten married, and common-law apps with periods of breaks of lack of proof of cohabitation.

Bingo. The benefits of this forum is finding out what actually happens. Sure - someone can certainly try applying for conjugal although they face no immigration barriers to getting married or becoming common law - and be prepared to fight for the right to apply under conjugal. What they can look forward to is very long processing times for their application (beyond those posted on the CIC site), an almost certain refusal, then a long appeal process with no guarantee of approval at the end. Rather than spending many long, frustrating and expensive years on this process - best to just do what CIC wants from the start and avoid messing up your life.

 

[Christoph100]

Any advice (except get married...that isn't an option for me) is appreciated.

Thanks

Marriage not an option why not? Are you already married ?

As the others have said is correct.

Your GF has a multi-entry visa for Canada and she is arriving the end of this month. You have been apart longer then 3 weeks. You do not qualify for common law. The clock restarts.

This is going to be harsh... Do you want to be with this woman or not? You have stayed in Thailand together, have you even tried to get the affidavit from her Embassy? or did you just assume it would be denied? Being in Thailand the Embassy may have issued the affidavit to contract marriage. It is not difficult to get married in Thailand one just has to follow the procedures and the marriage would have been conducted at a khet or ampur (Been there done that) and it would not have been a religious ceremony.

With your GF arriving in Canada you have another opportunity to do things "right" in CIC's eyes. Stop quoting the charter of rights and what the supreme court says, you will have a very long fight on your hands that you will lose in the long run relying on this knowledge.

Its very simple actually If you want to be together you will do what it takes meaning either living together here in Canada or abroad continuously for 12mths uninterupted. or being satisfied with living abroad together.

When she arrives in Canada the clock starts for Common law once again ...on the 13th month you can apply as Common Law and not before.

Or and this is your best option when she arrives here in Canada get married. You both want to be together right? normal civil justice of the peace is all you would require nothing religious.

So its up to you what you both want.

Chris.

 

[canadianwoman]

Fact is, we are living together 343 days in the last year, ......

OK, this is something where some confusion may have crept in. If you have been living together for 343 days in the last year, you can apply common-law. It does not matter if some of those days were when you two were travelling together - as long as you have proof. It is also OK if some of that time your partner was living with you in a country where she was a visitor, and did not have a resident permit. People have been successful with common-law applications when they lived together for 12 months and the whole time the foreign partner was just 'visiting' Canada.
We had one couple who successfully got a common-law PR visa when for the last three months of the 12 months of cohabitation they spent travelling around Asia together. They had receipts or a letter from every guesthouse and hostel they stayed at, along with photos and other documentation showing they were together.
The problem will come if there has been long breaks in the cohabitation. If there has been, you can start over when your partner comes to Canada to reestablish common law status.

 

[Buletruck]

Thanks for the constructive response Canadianwoman. As I stated earlier, we will continue with the common law application. I was just looking at the conjugal as an option based on OP2. As someone stated earlier, you do what you have to make this work (without lying, cheating or committing fraud (including getting married just to improve your chances) or compromising your beliefs/values and integrity to do so).

My experience with Immigration (in any country) has always been honesty during the process. To get married, just to improve chances of getting a PR approved smacks of marriage fraud. It becomes a marriage of convenience in order to take advantage of the system. In fact, being married and not being able to prove a conjugal or common law relationship prior to the marriage is the same as not having any relationship at all and you would still need to complete the one year of living together portion of the requirement regardless.

 

[Rob_TO]

OK, this is something where some confusion may have crept in. If you have been living together for 343 days in the last year, you can apply common-law. It does not matter if some of those days were when you two were travelling together - as long as you have proof.

The only huge point of caution I would mention is that the "proof" here seems to be entirely in the form of letters from friends/family, and entry/exit visas to show his partner was travelling with him. But nothing that I saw that actually shows they were cohabiting at the same address.

Lately there have been MANY reports here from various visa offices, of people applying for common-law being asked partway through the process to provide even more proof of cohabitation to satisfy the visa officer's concerns. Just something for the OP to prepare for if his application will not actually have solid proofs of cohabitation (like official documents listing a shared address, letter from a landlord, both name on hotel receipt if travelling, etc).

You need to be kind of pessimistic in any PR app you do, especially when you're dealing with the Singapore visa office which has a very long posted processing time of 30 months. A strong app will get through much quicker, but a complicated one with possibility for interview may be one of the unlucky 20% or so that actually sees a 30 month processing time.

 

[Ravcat]

My advice is have all your ducks in a row. This seems like a very complicated scenario...and the more complicated, the more you are going to have to prove everything.

I am not sure HOW you are going to prove that yall were living together in all those countries, was both names at the addresses/bills/junk mail/etc. Might have to have letters from each place vouching that you were both there, how they knew you etc.

If nothing was in her name, and it was all in yours, it will be difficult to paint the story line without very concrete evidence.

There are people with much more clean/clear cases that have been rejected for the tiniest things, or delayed for failure to supply all documentations...etc...

 

[Buletruck]

The only huge point of caution I would mention is that the "proof" here seems to be entirely in the form of letters from friends/family, and entry/exit visas to show his partner was travelling with him. But nothing that I saw that actually shows they were cohabiting at the same address.

I didn't feel there was a need to provide a complete rundown of the application for the questions posed. Not that I wanted to get into a long discussion on what evidence is available, but:

1) Travel history dating back to March 2011 (78 corresponding visa stamps in 6 passports) ranging from day trips to several months in the same location.
2) airline bookings dating back to March 2012 on 10 different airlines.
3) 3 Canadian TRV's (past history with CIC and probably one of the most convincing), 1 Australian and 1 US B1/B2 visa in which I am either the sponsor, provided a letter of support or the travel companion.
4) She holds a CC on my account. (Banks in most countries don't give people accounts unless they are authorized to live there for extended periods PR, WP, SP...A visitor visa doesn't cut it).
5) 8 trips to Canada since late 2013, residing at my sisters or brothers in Canada during those visits.
6) Pictures with friends, family, co-worker in various countries and locations from 2011.
7) letters from the above confirming the relationship.
8) joint membership in various local organizations (business and social).

There is more than enough proof to confirm a conjugal relationship, which is paramount regardless of which method you choose (conjugal, common law or married). You can't have the last 2 without the first one!
If it takes 30 months, then it takes 30 months. I didn't ask for everyone's perspective on proof, only specific questions. I have yet, in any of my dealing (or hers for that matter), had any reason to be pessimistic about anything CIC does. My experience has been if you provide what they ask for, and are honest, there aren't any issues. Anyone who isn't prepared for an interview at the time they apply is foolish. It's clearly part of the process.

Apology's if I offend anyone, but comments on "many stories of (insert your favourite CIC horror story here)" are not beneficial in rather stressful process. If we were to listen to everyone with an opinion (other than the visa officer), we would never even consider applying for a PR! The same comments were made for her TRV's ("it's so hard to get a TRV for Canada or a B1/B2 for the U.S."). In actual fact the first TRV took 6 days with each subsequent one taking less than 5 days. The U.S. visa took an interview that was 8 minutes and processed in a day. Pessimism isn't constructive!

 

[BeShoo]

You evidence sounds good to me. Hopefully it sounds good to CIC, too.

Getting back to the original questions...

1) After being told by several bank branches of different brands that my American common-law partner could not get a bank account without PR, I discovered that the only thing the Royal Bank wanted was proof of identity like a passport. It was no problem to add him onto my RBC Royal Bank account, thus making it a joint account. We just went in and showed his passport and filled in some forms.

2) I would file before if you have a choice. They are reassured by the fact that an application is in process and that you are following proper procedures. As long as she already has a TRV, I can't see a problem.