Common-law inland sponsorship: What counts as 'temporary, short' time apart?

[arrarr]

Hi,

I've been with my partner for 4 years, and we've lived together in Canada since April 2014. We're applying for inland common-law permanent residency for myself (I'm Scottish), the problem is:

I spent two months (May to July) of last summer, 2015, in Scotland a) for my brother's wedding then b) because I was waiting for my new IEC working holiday visa to come in so I could work again in Canada. As soon as my visa came through, I flew back to Canada to be with my partner, who couldn't leave his seasonal job to come to the wedding.

I was also outside of Canada for two months of winter in 2014-15, for Christmas (my partner stayed in Canada as his father is sick) so if those absences don't count as 'short, temporary' (I can't imagine they'll count as short, to be honest), does that mean I have to wait till July 2016 and 12 months of being together continuously before applying for common-law?

We've been committed and together even when I've been away (I'm a freelance travel writer and editor and so don't need to stay in one place...perhaps my lack of travels -- outside of visiting family -- over the past couple of years will be testament to my bond with my partner? )

Any advice would be much appreciated.

 

[canadianwoman]

Two months is too long. I would just wait and apply in July, to be safe. You might end up with a PR faster by waiting until July anyway, rather than applying now, having the visa officer ask for more documents, then maybe being refused, and so on.

I would also suggest applying outland. You can stay in Canada as a visitor while waiting.

 

[scylla]

Agreed. Two months is too long - CIC will regard that as a break in continuous cohabitation. Three weeks is generally the max.

Don't apply until July.

 

[Buletruck]

Did you live together before you moved to Canada? Pretty sure if you met the conditions of common law before you came to Canada, the extended separation isn't as big a deal as long as you can prove continued interaction 9e-mail, Skype, txt, phone calls, etc). Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Ponga]

It's probably easier to `guess' what being "a little bit pregnant" means, in terms of time.

This is one of at least a handful of questions that even CIC can't properly answer...even though it's their own mandate.

 

[li-lai-lai]

I have the same problem too, I was away for 6weeks because of work,i have sent my app along with texts record and call history to show that our relationship is continuous. hopefully it is OK.

 

[CDNPR2014]

I have the same problem too, I was away for 6weeks because of work,i have sent my app along with texts record and call history to show that our relationship is continuous. hopefully it is OK.

i believe being away for work related reason is considered differently than being away for vacation/waiting for a valid work/visitor visa. i am assuming when you had to leave for work, you still maintained regular residence in your home in canada and i'm assuming when the OP left, his residence changed back to his home country so he can be approved for a new work permit. not all situations have the same threshold... from what i understand a "break in cohabitation" means you both no longer held the same residence for a specific period of time. perhaps my understanding is wrong here. i'm sure others will confirm.

 

[MaryLou6]

From our experience 3-4 weeks apart shouldn't make a difference. It does, like almost everything with CIC, depend on your officer. I had to go back to my country to defend my thesis and was gone for ~1.5 month. My partner joined me there approx. 3-4 weeks after I left Canada (we were still common law, not married at that time).
It is up to you to decide when to send your package, but if you were away for a significant time, provide a good explanation. Even though you do that, your officer may still decline your application (but may not - there is no FOLLOWED rule here).

 

[arrarr]

Thank you so much, everyone. I think we'll just get married; seems easier than proving common-law in many ways! And I also appreciate the advice on applying 'outland' -- we'll do that, too.