Changes to Immigration Regs affecting spousal/cl/cp applications expected soon.

[waitingintz]

I understand that it's a touchy subject for all of us in the midst of this process but I really think some of you are misinterpreting what I said. As I very clearly said, I ABSOLUTELY AM NOT SUGGESTION that all applications in which the people married a month before the application are fraudulent. I am certain that many/most are in fact real relationships. As I also said, I myself considered doing that and in the end did not because of time and financial restrictions. I would rather wait and do it the way I want with everyone I want in attendence and I wouldn't have been able to do that. So NO - I definitely did not say that all people who get married and then apply for immigration should be targetted in any way.

I was meerly suggesting that if common-law applications and conjugal relationships are given their fair weight, people wouldn't feel the need to get married before they apply and I believe that it is most likely that many of those will be the ones targetted under the new regulations (and again - I'm NOT saying they SHOULD be, I'm just saying it seems like they will be).

@sbwv09 and dair2dv - I don't doubt, question or judge your reasons for marraige at all. I think you shouldn't have any problem getting approved based entirely on the history of your relationship whether you have a marraige certificate or not. When you are approved, I would hope it the ample amount of evidence you provide of your entire your relationship would be the deciding factor and not only the possession of a marraige certificate because as you've siad, everyone's circumstances are different. I should hope those are beliefs you WOULD want in a VO.

 

[Yaya Marei]

[/quote]
Absolutely the concern is how the new rules would be applied. I also have missing msn records because of my computer crashing...again, does this make my relationship less real?? This is the concern I have, that this totally annonymous person has that much control, having a bad day etc to say "They are missing msn records from this time to this time..hmm I think it is not genuine so sorry...DENIED"
[/quote]

you can download program from internet even if you lost the Msn , the program will pring it back,

 

[Love_Young]

I've been around this forum for a few months and it amazes me how many people's timelines list marraige less than one month before the application is submitted.

You know some people were actually dating for a long time before then... :|

Also you may not have meant for it to be interpreted that way but it will be. You have to realize that this is a sensitive time for most couples and we tend to get defensive if someone makes a remark towards something that sound close to our own situation. I don't know about anyone else but if you say something that remotely makes me think you are trying to say that my relationship/marriage isn't genuine, I will get defensive and prove you wrong.

Again just saying!

 

[dair2dv8103100]

you can download program from internet even if you lost the Msn , the program will pring it back,

Do you have a link for this? ;D I would be most grateful if this is really something I can do!!

I lost a years worth of msn conversations because they had to reset it to factory standards...at the time I was not even thinking or concerned about this because marriage was still a far off idea and I had no idea about immigration.

 

[bonbon9]

It would sound fair to me to have the same condition of a year of relationship for all categories: spousal, common law and conjugal.
I know that some people do meet each other and fall in love at first sight, and get married the next month. I can't say this means that the relationship is not genuine, my own parents got married the next month after dating eachother! But I believe there should be a rule for married couples not to be eligible to apply until they have had one year of relationship.. not trying to be mean to those with shorter relationship, but have you realized how serious the commitment is? The sponsorship agreement makes you almost fully responsible for your significant other, the least I'd expect is that you know your significant other better than anyone else, or at least have tried to. I don't mean actually living together for one year, just proving you have had a relationship for at least one year.. It is a requirement for common law and conjugal, nobody complains about it, and I think it's pretty fair.
Again, sorry if someone gets offended by this, I don't mean to and as I said, I do believe genuine relationships would commit after one month of meeting and last forever, just like my own parents. But it seems fair in this process to apply the same rules for all categories, about how "old" and committed our relationship is.

 

[hoping75]

It is perfectly normal to file the application soon after you get married. I got married and filed 2 weeks after my return from Morocco. It took that long to get everything ready to send, and then check everything once, twice and three times. lol, It was never an issue with my Husband's approval.

Nobody really wants to wait to get the application sent. It is already difficult enough waiting the amount of time we have to.
I think waiting a long time to submit the application can also be viewed negatively. The agents may wonder why you waited so long to submit, most people are anxious to be with their loved ones, so why the delay. some people were asked the question about why the delay in submitting the application. Most of the cases I know of filed right away after the marriage and the application was ready, and they were approved with no problem. The fast application was never an issue. Sometimes getting married too quickly after meeting someone can be a red flag, such as those that marry one or two months after meeting each other.

Good luck to everyone

 

[hoping75]

It would seem to sound right and fair, but a year really does not fully let you know someone honestly. Only living together will really help with that. Unfortunately for many couples , living together for a period of time is not possible because of our obligations here.
I hate to say this also, but someone who is really scamming for a visa can lie for much longer than a year. They can be very patient when they know the reward is on it's way. I have heard of relationships going on for 2, 3, even 4 years, and the sponsored spouse was just using the sponsor for the visa. Upon arriving in Canada all the acceptance and sweet words disappeared, and were replaced with insults and intolerance, or they just disappear themselves shortly after arrival. On the flip side there are short relationships that are very successful.

It is really so difficult to make any requirement foolproof against scammers, it is unfortunate but true, and the real relationships have to suffer the consequences for the unscrupulous.

It would sound fair to me to have the same condition of a year of relationship for all categories: spousal, common law and conjugal.
I know that some people do meet each other and fall in love at first sight, and get married the next month. I can't say this means that the relationship is not genuine, my own parents got married the next month after dating eachother! But I believe there should be a rule for married couples not to be eligible to apply until they have had one year of relationship.. not trying to be mean to those with shorter relationship, but have you realized how serious the commitment is? The sponsorship agreement makes you almost fully responsible for your significant other, the least I'd expect is that you know your significant other better than anyone else, or at least have tried to. I don't mean actually living together for one year, just proving you have had a relationship for at least one year.. It is a requirement for common law and conjugal, nobody complains about it, and I think it's pretty fair.
Again, sorry if someone gets offended by this, I don't mean to and as I said, I do believe genuine relationships would commit after one month of meeting and last forever, just like my own parents. But it seems fair in this process to apply the same rules for all categories, about how "old" and committed our relationship is.

 

[MD2B]

It would sound fair to me to have the same condition of a year of relationship for all categories: spousal, common law and conjugal.
I know that some people do meet each other and fall in love at first sight, and get married the next month. I can't say this means that the relationship is not genuine, my own parents got married the next month after dating eachother! But I believe there should be a rule for married couples not to be eligible to apply until they have had one year of relationship.. not trying to be mean to those with shorter relationship, but have you realized how serious the commitment is? The sponsorship agreement makes you almost fully responsible for your significant other, the least I'd expect is that you know your significant other better than anyone else, or at least have tried to. I don't mean actually living together for one year, just proving you have had a relationship for at least one year.. It is a requirement for common law and conjugal, nobody complains about it, and I think it's pretty fair.
Again, sorry if someone gets offended by this, I don't mean to and as I said, I do believe genuine relationships would commit after one month of meeting and last forever, just like my own parents. But it seems fair in this process to apply the same rules for all categories, about how "old" and committed our relationship is.

I have had a relationship with my partner that would meet all 3 classes. So this is not personal. However, I do think that you need to think about what you are saying.
Ask yourself, why common law was created at all? It was to give people the same legal benefits in MANY areas of life (not just our little immigration world) as a married party.
Are you suggesting that it should be a Canadian law that people should have to date for one year before marriage? Because you cant just select the legalities of marriage - a legal contract with serious implications and commitments involved. Common law now has equal rights/commitments/implications.
Conjugal was created in all its senses for people who have the right to marry/live common law, but who truly cannot. For example, my spouse and I are a same sex couple who would have applied as conjugal if we could not marry here in Canada. I think all things being equal the commitment of marriage DOES warrant a time commitment of equality in partners that don't CHOOSE to marry. Partners who want to but cannot, it is a different story.
Just think outside your immigration box.... I think that people have real lives and real circumstances that rightfully warrant an application right after immigration. ie: people who want to "get on with their lives", rather than wait in limbo (most of us). And people who have rights earned by their legal nuptials - taxes, pensions among other "perks" to marriage, that you are suggesting should be held off until the married ones have "proven themselves"?
Just imagine - a law asking for people to have dated one year before they are legally allowed to marry? Then it would eradicate any need for common law to exist at all.

 

[bonbon9]

Just imagine - a law asking for people to have dated one year before they are legally allowed to marry? Then it would eradicate any need for common law to exist at all.

Nope, I did not mean this. I meant a law that doesn't allow people to apply for permanent residence under any category - conjugal, common law or spousal, unless they can prove that their relationship has been going for at least a year. Not a year since the date of marriage, a year since the relationship started (knowing each other, dating, loving each other, etc..)

And I don't believe that common-law would ever be able to eradicate marriage, under any conditions. People these days still believe in the institution of marriage!

 

[BeShoo]

so this means if its an arranged marriage its totally okay to have the reason to get married as a way to canada.

It can be one of the reasons, but it can't be the only reason. The key phrase in the act is "entered into primarily" to gain some privilege under the act. You only have to prove that it's not the primary reason.

In my case, we are happily living in a legitimate conjugal relationship (actually common law for 7 months now, though that's not enough to count). In our situation, where we are not entirely "out" to our families, a secret wedding doesn't seem appropriate at the present time. We have been told by several people that we ought to get married before sending in the application, but this would certainly be a wedding primarily for immigration purposes. Marriage or no marriage, we still have a legitimate relationship but I'm wondering now if marriage is now more urgent than before.

 

[bonbon9]

It would seem to sound right and fair, but a year really does not fully let you know someone honestly. Only living together will really help with that. Unfortunately for many couples , living together for a period of time is not possible because of our obligations here.

I understand what you mean and totally agree with this. But then people say that you never stop getting to know someone...

I hate to say this also, but someone who is really scamming for a visa can lie for much longer than a year. They can be very patient when they know the reward is on it's way. I have heard of relationships going on for 2, 3, even 4 years, and the sponsored spouse was just using the sponsor for the visa. Upon arriving in Canada all the acceptance and sweet words disappeared, and were replaced with insults and intolerance, or they just disappear themselves shortly after arrival. On the flip side there are short relationships that are very successful.

It is really so difficult to make any requirement foolproof against scammers, it is unfortunate but true, and the real relationships have to suffer the consequences for the unscrupulous.

Wow, that's horrible I wish there was a way for those people who sponsored scammers to prove this and have them taken out of the country.. this is so upsetting.. maybe there should be an APPLICANT AGREEMENT to be signed just like the SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT!!!

 

[dair2dv8103100]

It would sound fair to me to have the same condition of a year of relationship for all categories: spousal, common law and conjugal.
I know that some people do meet each other and fall in love at first sight, and get married the next month. I can't say this means that the relationship is not genuine, my own parents got married the next month after dating eachother! But I believe there should be a rule for married couples not to be eligible to apply until they have had one year of relationship.. not trying to be mean to those with shorter relationship, but have you realized how serious the commitment is? The sponsorship agreement makes you almost fully responsible for your significant other, the least I'd expect is that you know your significant other better than anyone else, or at least have tried to. I don't mean actually living together for one year, just proving you have had a relationship for at least one year.. It is a requirement for common law and conjugal, nobody complains about it, and I think it's pretty fair.
Again, sorry if someone gets offended by this, I don't mean to and as I said, I do believe genuine relationships would commit after one month of meeting and last forever, just like my own parents. But it seems fair in this process to apply the same rules for all categories, about how "old" and committed our relationship is.

Sure, I can appreciate that. I totally think a year is fine. I have been in my LD relationship for 2 years and now we want to get married. I don't have an issue with that and I agree that waiting a year is valid in the sense of making sure the relationship is genuine and one person is not just in the relationship for a visa.

My issue is with having to "prove" the validity, whether it is conjugal/common law or married and the comment that was made that they were surprised that so many people applied so quickly after being married. The point of spousal sponsorship is to reunite family...I would think that most married people or people in a genuine international relationship of any sort would want to do this as quickly as possible so who is to say what is too soon for someone to apply? I also understand what they were saying about marriage should not be something rushed into or forced simply for immigration purposes. But just because a person gets married and then applies quickly should not imply the marriage was entered into for immigration purposes only.

I know a case where a couple dated online for 4 months, she went there, they got married in the first visit then she returned. Spent 8 or 9 months apart then she returned to stay for a couple months. There was an emergency back home and she had to leave early and he was allowed to return with her. Guess what...he contacted me and asked me if I would marry him when he comes to Canada (they are in the states) !!! So do I agree it should be at least a year...absolutely...but obviously even after more than a year some of these relationships are still simply a way to leave the country they are in. So again we come back to the point of ... a total stranger having to decide what they perceive is genuine or not, obviously their VO decided it was genuine when I know otherwise.

I know this is not the topic of the thread...but any advice on what I should do in this situation I mentioned above? Having knowledge that someone is simply in the relationship for a visa but they are already in the states...what can be done?...should I do anything? This poor woman has 4 kids from her previous relationship and I guess loves this guy...who am I to tear that apart? At the same time he is going to leave for Canada eventually and his words to me were "it is up to her if she comes with me or not." This person obviously has no issue with doing whatever it takes to get what he wants and does not care about the consequences to anyone else. He is simply a scammer and is one of the reasons people with genuine relationships are having such a hard time now.

 

[lynw]

I believe that immigration views conjugal and common law partners with the most scrutiny because it could be just a situation where it is a friend helping a friend move to another country without making the commitment of marriage which to me makes the relationship more valid since it is a huge commitment to make.

That _may_ be true for some cases of conjugal, which is why it's hard to prove, but NOT for common law. In fact you could look at it the other way round....

Common-law = minimum one year living together, sharing responsibilities, spending time, being a couple etc.

Marriage = a short ceremony and a piece of paper.

Depends on how you look at things really... all the cases are different, but not better or worse.

 

[dair2dv8103100]

That _may_ be true for some cases of conjugal, which is why it's hard to prove, but NOT for common law. In fact you could look at it the other way round....

Common-law = minimum one year living together, sharing responsibilities, spending time, being a couple etc.

Marriage = a short ceremony and a piece of paper.

Depends on how you look at things really... all the cases are different, but not better or worse.

Agreed...but (playing devils advocate here) they could also look at Common-law as sure they lived together but is there actually a relationship or is it a friendship of convenience? Is there proof of an actual relationship between them or just sharing the same living space and so on and so forth....

So I agree with hoping75 in the sense that there is really no way to completely validate ANY relationship and prevent scammers. It is completely at the IO's discretion....this is my biggest concern. Whether it is conjugal or common law or spousal is really a moot point in the end.

 

[bobshynoswife]

I have to say I don't think any of us should really have a problem with the principle of the new regulations: people who marry for immigration purposes alone SHOULDN'T be approved. It's the application of it that concerns us and what kind of extra proof will be required.

I've been around this forum for a few months and it amazes me how many people's timelines list marraige less than one month before the application is submitted. I'm absolutely NOT suggesting that all of those people are in fraudulent relationships or anything like that because I've heard some of the circumstances and understand. I consulted with a lawyer before applying and "should we get married first" was definitely a question I brought up. We decided to apply as common-law partners but I also have the luxory of having a partner who is a White South African (a question the lawyer delicately asked before answering the question, I might add).

I think realistically, if you have been in a long-term, genuine relationship you won't need a marraige certificate in order to sponsor your partner. It's the couples that feel that for whatever reason they wouldn't be approved that go to the extra length of getting married first. So we're talking about relationships that would be questioned anyway. As long as the VO is accessing Common-Law and Conjugal relationships in a fair way, genuinge relationships shouldn't be troubled by this new added challenge (and really - it's primarily going to be couple's recently married that this would apply to).

And does anyone really think that couples should be encouraged to rush into marraige just to be together in Canada? Better to have a reasonable common-law and conjugal application process.

Our application went in quickly after marriage because we wanted to be together as soon as possible. I married him because I love him and want to be with him for the rest of my life, but we got married overseas and probably earlier than we would have because of immigration. You have to understand that for many of us, there isn't a common-law or conjugal option.

USA and UK have fiance visas. Perhaps this would be a better way to go. He could have come on a fiance visa (even unable to work would be fine with me), met my children and family and we could have had the option to marry where and when we wished.