Denied as Common Law,Will Apply now as Married

[screech339]

I am wondering why would he tell CIC that they were already common law before he became a PR himself? He could have just said that they started dating/living together and common law happened after obtaining PR status. Can someone explain? :
I know it is also hard to prove common law status that's why most people are just getting married instead.

One way to find out and was probably how it was caught is: same address for over a year together. CIC can put two and two together. Once you are considered common law in the eyes of Canadian law, the onus is on you to prove you were NOT common law.

 

[o6ocpaka]

One way to find out and was probably how it was caught is: same address for over a year together. CIC can put two and two together. Once you are considered common law in the eyes of Canadian law, the onus is on you to prove you were NOT common law.

So some people will have to go through the hoops trying to prove their genuine relationship (even legally married ones), but CIC will blindly accept common law status in some other country just because the address was the same ?
Oh well, something is definetly not right here, I think there is much more to his story...

 

[screech339]

So some people will have to go through the hoops trying to prove their genuine relationship (even legally married ones), but CIC will blindly accept common law status in some other country just because the address was the same ?
Oh well, something is definetly not right here, I think there is much more to his story...

Unfortunately that is the law. When you live together for 1 year together, you are automatic deemed common law. So when you apply for common law sponsorship, you have to prove with documentation that you in fact lived together.

Once you are automatically common law, you have to prove that you were NOT common law, if you don't want declare common law dependent.

It is so easy to conceal the common law because there is no paperwork unlike a marriage certificate. You can't hide your marriage but it is easier to hide your common law status. This is why common law status has to be put under a microscope when it comes to immigration purposes.

This is to clamp down on immigration fraud.

 

[o6ocpaka]

Unfortunately that is the law. When you live together for 1 year together, you are automatic deemed common law. So when you apply for common law sponsorship, you have to prove with documentation that you in fact lived together.

Once you are automatically common law, you have to prove that you were NOT common law, if you don't want declare common law dependent.

This is to clamp down on immigration fraud.

Could you please tell me where exactly this common law law exists, since as you said - it is the law.

an interesting article:

"There is no such thing as ‘common law’ in Ontario law — that term doesn’t exist,"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/4-myths-about-common-law-relationships-1.1315129

 

[o6ocpaka]

Im in this situation right now that I applied for my partner as common law as before but got denied because i failed to declare her when I moved here .
Now we got married and will apply for spousal sponsorship. Will my previous application before be a problem? Who else in here are in the same boat as me? Please help.

Thank you.

I

To be honest with you, I think you should get a lawyer and prove them wrong here. Good luck

 

[scylla]

To be honest with you, I think you should get a lawyer and prove them wrong here. Good luck

It's pointless and this is very bad advice. CIC is right in refusing the OP. The rules are black and white - and the spouse can never be sponsored. If the OP appeals with the help of a lawyer - best case scenario he will be refused. Worst case scenario his own PR status will be revoked for misrepresentation since his PR was obtained fraudulently.

 

[scylla]

Could you please tell me where exactly this common law law exists, since as you said - it is the law.

an interesting article:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/4-myths-about-common-law-relationships-1.1315129

Immigration law. Try the CIC web site instead.

 

[o6ocpaka]

Immigration law. Try the CIC web site instead.

Since when does CIC make laws, do you know the definition of law?
CRA for example has a completely different view of PRs, is that a law also?

 

[gooh]

Since when does CIC make laws, do you know the definition of law?
CRA for example has a completely different view of PRs, is that a law also?

Why are you arguing this so feverishly?

 

[keesio]

Since when does CIC make laws, do you know the definition of law?
CRA for example has a completely different view of PRs, is that a law also?

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=346&t=14

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Since when does CIC make laws, do you know the definition of law?
CRA for example has a completely different view of PRs, is that a law also?

Since you can't seem to be bothered to actually do some research, let me lay it out for you here.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/section-117.html

Specifically, R117(9)(d):

117. Excluded relationships

(9) A foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if

(d) subject to subsection (10), the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent
resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined.

 

[Ponga]

Since when does CIC make laws, do you know the definition of law?
CRA for example has a completely different view of PRs, is that a law also?

You have no idea how serious this is! The OP made a devastating mistake...end of story!

 

[screech339]

You have no idea how serious this is! The OP made a devastating mistake...end of story!

While the OP made a very serious error, I wouldn't call it a mistake. There is a different in making a mistake and omitting the status deliberately. I think the OP happens fall in the latter. The OP omitted the status under the parents PR so he can get PR. It is that simple. Otherwise he would never get PR and would have to come to Canada on his own merits instead. I think he may even fail to get PR on his own merits thus counting on his parents PR to get it. Unfortunately for him, karma caught up to him and bit him in the a$$.

 

[screech339]

It's pointless and this is very bad advice. CIC is right in refusing the OP. The rules are black and white - and the spouse can never be sponsored. If the OP appeals with the help of a lawyer - best case scenario he will be refused. Worst case scenario his own PR status will be revoked for misrepresentation since his PR was obtained fraudulently.

Not only his own PR will be revoke worst case, his parents (his other siblings if they also came under parents PR) may also lose their PR status as they landed knowingly dependent status was changed as well. They landed by misrepresentation by not informing CIC to remove common law dependent from parent PR application.

 

[scylla]

While the OP made a very serious error, I wouldn't call it a mistake. There is a different in making a mistake and omitting the status deliberately. I think the OP happens fall in the latter. The OP omitted the status under the parents PR so he can get PR. It is that simple. Otherwise he would never get PR and would have to come to Canada on his own merits instead. I think he may even fail to get PR on his own merits thus counting on his parents PR to get it. Unfortunately for him, karma caught up to him and bit him in the a$$.

Agreed. He obtained his own PR status through committing immigration fraud. He wasn't entitled to receive PR status through his parents and it's entirely possible CIC may move to revoke.