Conjugal partner conundrum

[Voiceless]

I'm a United States citizen, and my girlfriend is a Canadian citizen. Our problem is, is that she is still technically married. Her husband took off about 6 years ago now, and he cannot be located to complete the divorce documents. Because divorce is not possible for her, would she still be able to sponsor me for immigration as a conjugal partner? Any information would be helpful---I qualify for no other immigration visas, so this is our last hope to live and be together permanently.

Thanks in advance.

 

[scylla]

Have you looked at common law? This is probably a more realistic route tha conjugal. To qualify to be sponsored through common law, you must have lived together for a minimum of one full year.

Also, it is possible to get a divorce even if you can't find someone. See here for the Ontario process:

http://www.ezdivorce.ca/missing.htm

Not sure conjugal will work for you because you have other options that have not been fully explored.

 

[scylla]

As far as I know, she will not be eligible to sponsor you, but I am not sure how it works for conjugal partner applications. My guess would be that since she is still married, that needs to be resolved before she can sponsor you. That said, I'm sure there must be a way given the circumstances.

Sorry I couldn't be of further assistance!

FS

This isn't correct. You can be married to one person and still sponsor someone else. For example, let's say that your first marriage fell apart some time ago (i.e. you are separated) and you are now in a common law relationship with another person (but not fully divorced from the first). You can still sponsor your common law partner.

 

[Isometry]

She is eligible to sponsor you even while still technically married. However, as scylla posted, common law is probably a better option than conjugal, if at all possible.

 

[Voiceless]

So if I live with her in Canada for six months as a visa exempt visitor, and extend my stay for another six months, we would qualify as common-law partners after the full year? Is this still true in the province of Alberta?

Hopefully this means that the love of my life and I can finally be together permanently. ;D

Thank you all for the advice, we will explore the common-law option more thoroughly.

 

[OhCanadiana]

So if I live with her in Canada for six months as a visa exempt visitor, and extend my stay for another six months, we would qualify as common-law partners after the full year? Is this still true in the province of Alberta?

Hopefully this means that the love of my life and I can finally be together permanently. ;D

Thank you all for the advice, we will explore the common-law option more thoroughly.

Yes, this plan would work. You'll need to live together a full year with only very short breaks, if any (try to vacation together, etc). And, the reason scylla and isometry suggested common-law vs conjugal is that, precisely because you have the option to live together (ie no immigration barriers or same sex relationship in a country where it is illegal and dangerous to live together) and the conjugal path is intendend for people who cannot establish a common-law relationship.

I would recommend reading through http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf to get a sense of the proof they will be looking for and also because section 5.38 addresses common law relationships when one partner is married (to ease your mind)

The only thing to be aware of is that you'll need to be genuinely visiting her for the year and won't be able to work (since you are on a visitor visa) ... mirror-image of the situation if she visits you in the US.

 

[Voiceless]

Duly noted. I will send her a copy of the PDF and we can discuss it further.

Many thanks!

 

[OhCanadiana]

Duly noted. I will send her a copy of the PDF and we can discuss it further.

Many thanks!

Good luck

 

[Fencesitter]

This isn't correct. You can be married to one person and still sponsor someone else. For example, let's say that your first marriage fell apart some time ago (i.e. you are separated) and you are now in a common law relationship with another person (but not fully divorced from the first). You can still sponsor your common law partner.

Apologies for the inaccuracy.

I thought that you needed to prove separation or divorce in order to be eligible to sponsor?

FS

 

[canadianwoman]

You do have to prove the prior marriage is over. But in cases where the marriage is clearly over, but the parties have not divorced yet for whatever reason, they can still sponsor someone else as a common-law or conjugal partner.

 

[OhCanadiana]

I thought that you needed to prove separation or divorce in order to be eligible to sponsor?

FS

You do. Devil's in the details - section 5.48 to be precise. The OP is likely eligible given that that his other half's husband "took off about 6 years ago" so they've been separated for at least one year.


"5.38. What happens if the common-law partner (principal applicant) is married to another
person?
Persons who are married to third parties may be considered common-law partners provided their
marriage has broken down and they have lived separate and apart from the spouse for long
enough to establish a common-law relationship – at least one year. In this case they must have
cohabited in a conjugal relationship with the common-law partner for at least one year.
Cohabitation with a common-law partner cannot be considered to have started until a physical
separation from the spouse has occurred. A common-law relationship cannot be legally
established if one or both parties continue their marital relationships.
Officers must be satisfied that a principal applicant is separated from and no longer cohabits with
a legal spouse. This evidence may be in the form of a signed formal declaration that the marriage
has ended and that the person has entered into a common-law relationship. An officer may
require that the person produce other written evidence of a formal separation or of a breakdown of
the marriage. Acceptable documents include a separation agreement, a court order in respect of
custody of children identifying the fact of the marriage breakdown, documents removing the
legally married spouse(s) from insurance policies or will as beneficiaries (a “change of beneficiary”
form).
In the above circumstances, the legal spouse of the principal applicant need not be examined and
will not be considered a member of the family class if the applicant later attempts to sponsor this
spouse. [See R117(9)(d)]. Notes in CAIPS should indicate that the applicant was aware of the
consequences of non-examination."

 

[Ichiro]

Conjugal partnership could work too, though I from my experience it's one of the more difficult cases to prove.