Common law partner application questions - thanks

[rhcohen2014]

I think this part is nuts! You may be right, but not referring to yourself as "fiancee"??? Why the heck not? In life, you make many decisions. If you are currently living together over 12 months and in a serious relationship, you qualify for common-law if you meet the definition. If you happen to make another "life" decision after this has happened (i.e., one of you proposes to the other and want to be formally married) then so be it!!! I think it would be ridiculous to say that you will have to now wait until you are married (assuming the statement is true that you don't already consider yourself "hitched"). What happens if you decide you want a nice spring wedding? You won't be able to sponsor (or you shouldn't consider sponsoring) your spouse because you intend to change you status from common-law to married?

i think you are misunderstanding what was being said. people can't sponsor fiances, they can ONLY sponsor commonlaw partners or a spouse. i don't think it's being suggested that if you are commonlaw, you can't say you are engaged, just that you can't sponsor a "fiance". you are either commonlaw or you are married, there is no inbetween. one has nothing to do with the other, and if a couple can prove commonlaw, then they can apply as commonlaw regardless of whether they decide to get engaged or not. if they can't, and are not married, and only engaged, they have to either qualify for commonlaw or wait until they are married. At least that is how I am interpreting the comment. i beleive there are many commonlaw couples who get engaged and are successful in getting approved as commonlaw.

 

[Rob_TO]

PS I also heard from a very senior immigration lawyer to not mention in your application for common-law that you are engaged (so I'm not really putting down this comment...just venting). That really got me confused as it has no bearing on your current marriage-like status.

Just for reference, we did a successful common-law application. As part of the proofs, we submitted the Facebook post announcing our engagement, pics of her with the engagement ring, and explained we would be getting married the following year. It didn't affect our app at all.

 

[Onemoretime]

i think you are misunderstanding what was being said. people can't sponsor fiances, they can ONLY sponsor commonlaw partners or a spouse. i don't think it's being suggested that if you are commonlaw, you can't say you are engaged, just that you can't sponsor a "fiance". you are either commonlaw or you are married, there is no inbetween. one has nothing to do with the other, and if a couple can prove commonlaw, then they can apply as commonlaw regardless of whether they decide to get engaged or not. if they can't, and are not married, and only engaged, they have to either qualify for commonlaw or wait until they are married. At least that is how I am interpreting the comment. i beleive there are many commonlaw couples who get engaged and are successful in getting approved as commonlaw.

Well I guess I may have read it differently. Hard not to when it says "Never, ever refer to her as your fiancée if you want to be able to sponsor her now." I would have no issue referring to my common-law spouse as my fiancee in documents I would submit if that were the case. Has no bearing on my application if I support the common-law requirements. I certainly know there is no category as "fiancee". Lets face it, the reality is that applicants use "common-law" category because they happen to qualify. Their intentions may be that they will be married or happen to be engaged. Some, of course, will remain common-law indefinitely...their choice.

However, the point of my comment was to give an opposing view to using the term fiancee. I only raised it because this was the second time I heard this. The previous was from a senior well respected lawyer in immigration. He too made a point of not putting in any part of your application that you are engaged or refer to "fiancee". I just found it silly advice.