Gap while cohabiting

[Saniko22]

Hi everyone,

I know that my issue has been discussed in previous topics, but since it's kind of a specific situation, I would appreciate your opinion and insight, especially of the seniors in this forum.

Our situation:

Me and my Canadian girlfriend are in a relationship for almost five years now. We have met in Germany back then (I'm German) and we either lived together in Canada or in Germany or we were visiting each other. When I was living in Canada we managed to live together for almost a year (we were three weeks short to complete the full year) from mid-August 2014 to end July 2015 (we have filed taxes under common-law for 2015). Unfortunately I couldn't stay longer since I needed to go back to Germany to defend my thesis. She joined me end of August 2015 in Germany, with a work and travel visa (so we haven’t seen each other for about a month). She couldn't join me sooner since she needed to wrap up things and still had a job.

In Germany we lived in my parent’s house until the end of January 2016. After that, we stayed in another city (let’s call it “City A”), via AirBnb, because my girlfriend found a temporary job there. In April 2016 I found a permanent job, however, in a different city (“City B”) as she continued to work in City A. During that time, we visited each other for 1-2 months and then she quit her job in City A to live with me in City B, where I had my full-time job. As she wanted to do a Master’s and found a study course that she liked, she moved to Denmark in August 2016. In total, we can show via documents that we have lived and travelled together from August 2014 until April 2016. At this point, I’m still living in City B, and my girlfriend is still studying in Denmark. When she will finish her degree, we were thinking moving together to Canada – which means that we are planning to start the application process in the next months.

Since we are able to show that our relationship is legitimate, we didn’t think that the interruption will be a show stopper, as we thought that in the end a holistic picture is more important and that this gap won’t be that problematic. However, after reading into this topic and other posts in this forum, it seems that this gap might be a bigger deal. Another issue is that we don’t have an official rental agreement for my parents’ house, but could show through, among others, official letters from insurances etc. and my girlfriends’ work and travel visa documentation that we have lived there, and of course, my parent’s confirmation – however, I don’t know if this will be enough for the CIC. In spite of these obstacles, as mentioned earlier, we are positive that we can demonstrate that we have a legitimate relationship.

As we are, however, due to the uncertainties kind of hesitant to apply, we are thinking to maybe even consult some professionals in this matter (agencies, lawyers etc.) just to make sure that we are considered common law; having said that, I’m well aware that in the end the visa officer makes the final decision.

What do you guys think? What’s your experience?
Do you think that the interruption will be considered a show stopper or that the holistic picture has more weight on the decision to refuse an application or not?

Thanks in advance for your much appreciated feedback!

 

[Ponga]

Unfortunately, the `interruption' is in fact a show stopper for a common-law sponsorship application.

Being even one day short of cohabiting together for 365 days, means that you were not/are not common-law. Being three weeks short is just as bad.
To add to that, filing taxes as common-law is considered tax fraud.

You should seriously consider re-filing your taxes to correct that mistake.

Unfortunately, IMHO, you have to start the clock all over again, if you manage to somehow live together again, or...get married, if you want to apply for sponsorship.

 

[Bcboundboy]

It sounds like you have not at any point lived together for 365 consecutive days. If that is true, you cannot apply as common law partners. If you had a three week gap in the middle, you might be ok (that long would depend on officer), but it being at the end simply means you've never established CL in the first place.

I'm sure you'd have no problems demonstrating a genuine relationship, but you don't meet the CL criteria. Your options are either to wait until you have 365 days together in a row, or get married (in which case everything you have is great supporting evidence for a genuine marriage).

Separately from immigration issues, you have wrongly filed taxes as common law when you're not, so you need to fix that.

 

[Ponga]

It sounds like you have not at any point lived together for 365 consecutive days. If that is true, you cannot apply as common law partners. If you had a three week gap in the middle, you might be ok (that long would depend on officer), but it being at the end simply means you've never established CL in the first place.

Separately from immigration issues, you have wrongly filed taxes as common law when you're not, so you need to fix that.

It doesn't/wouldn't matter if the 3 week break was at the end, or in the middle. They never met the one year requirement.

 

[Saniko22]

Hi there,

thanks for your the quick feedback!

It's not like we have stopped living together by the end of July 2015 - we have moved to Germany, at different points, and continued to live together till April 2016. So we were actually living together for 20 months with a gap of a month.

Also looking at the definition of common law again it says:

"... Has been living with you for at least 12 consecutive months. That means you have been living together continuously for one year, without any long periods apart. One of you may have left the home for work or business travel, family obligations, and so on. That separation must have been temporary and short."

"temporary and short" is subject to interpretation, so they don't mention a specific time frame and there must be a good reason why it happened - but it doesn't say that a break is not possible.

Further looking into the issue of maybe needing to refile my taxes, I stumbled upon this definition from the CRA:

"..you and your common-law partner have lived together in a marriage-like relationship for at least 12 months in a row (including any time you were separated for less than 90 days because of a breakdown in the relationship)"

So it seems that different definitions are applied and it is still not 100% clear if we are common law or not.

I will look more into it and inform myself. Thanks for your help guys.

 

[Bcboundboy]

It doesn't/wouldn't matter if the 3 week break was at the end, or in the middle. They never met the one year requirement.

It matters a great deal. If it's at the end, you are certain not to meet the requirement. If it happens in the middle, then gaps which are 'temporary and short' are permissible. As I said, the judgement of that depends on the officer, and 3 weeks would always be pushing it.

 

[Bcboundboy]

"... Has been living with you for at least 12 consecutive months. That means you have been living together continuously for one year, without any long periods apart. One of you may have left the home for work or business travel, family obligations, and so on. That separation must have been temporary and short."

"temporary and short" is subject to interpretation, so they don't mention a specific time frame and there must be a good reason why it happened - but it doesn't say that a break is not possible.

For IRCC purposes, it's generally held that up to 2 weeks is acceptable, beyond that point is dangerous, a month is certainly too long.

 

[Ponga]

Hi there,

thanks for your the quick feedback!

It's not like we have stopped living together by the end of July 2015 - we have moved to Germany, at different points, and continued to live together till April 2016. So we were actually living together for 20 months with a gap of a month.
But, you stated this: we managed to live together for almost a year (we were three weeks short to complete the full year) from mid-August 2014 to end July 2015", so you did terminate your cohabiting at the end of July, right?

Also looking at the definition of common law again it says:

"... Has been living with you for at least 12 consecutive months. That means you have been living together continuously for one year, without any long periods apart. One of you may have left the home for work or business travel, family obligations, and so on. That separation must have been temporary and short."

"temporary and short" is subject to interpretation, so they don't mention a specific time frame and there must be a good reason why it happened - but it doesn't say that a break is not possible.
Aha! You have found the Red Herring!

Further looking into the issue of maybe needing to refile my taxes, I stumbled upon this definition from the CRA:

"..you and your common-law partner have lived together in a marriage-like relationship for at least 12 months in a row (including any time you were separated for less than 90 days because of a breakdown in the relationship)"
Again, you don't seem to have met that requirement, but...it's merely my opinion. You never reached the required 365 days `in a row'.

So it seems that different definitions are applied and it is still not 100% clear if we are common law or not.

I will look more into it and inform myself. Thanks for your help guys.

 

[Saniko22]

Ponga: "But, you stated this: we managed to live together for almost a year (we were three weeks short to complete the full year) from mid-August 2014 to end July 2015", so you did terminate your cohabiting at the end of July, right?"

We have not terminated cohabiting, as we have moved to Germany at slightly different points. We lived in Canada together for almost a year, but continued in Germany living together until April 2016.

 

[Ponga]

Ponga: "But, you stated this: we managed to live together for almost a year (we were three weeks short to complete the full year) from mid-August 2014 to end July 2015", so you did terminate your cohabiting at the end of July, right?"

We have not terminated cohabiting, as we have moved to Germany at slightly different points. We lived in Canada together for almost a year, but continued in Germany living together until April 2016.

Well, that's not what you said in your post. You said that "She joined me end of August 2015 in Germany, with a work and travel visa (so we haven’t seen each other for about a month)."

Doesn't that show that you were not living together for ~ one month and therefore did not meet the requirement?

IMHO, it might be a tough sell, but you're certainly free to try!

Good luck!

 

[Saniko22]

I maybe used a different description, but the case is the same: "she joined me end of August" as in "she came to Germany to continue to live with me".

That's, again, true - we haven't seen each other for about a month. However, looking at the 20 month period with the one month gap, would mean that we have temporary break "in the middle" and not in the end. But I see that the length of the break may be an issue.

 

[Rob_TO]

When I was living in Canada we managed to live together for almost a year (we were three weeks short to complete the full year) from mid-August 2014 to end July 2015 (we have filed taxes under common-law for 2015). Unfortunately I couldn't stay longer since I needed to go back to Germany to defend my thesis. She joined me end of August 2015 in Germany, with a work and travel visa (so we haven’t seen each other for about a month). She couldn't join me sooner since she needed to wrap up things and still had a job.

A "temporary and short" gap in the common-law qualifying time, is supposed to be for when 1 partner goes away for work/family issues, etc and then returns back to the shared home. In your case you permanently moved out in July 2015 so after that date (for a period of 1 month) you each had completely separate residential addresses. So a visa officer may feel the cohabitation ended on that date, restarted again at day 1 when you re-established cohabitation later in Germany, and hence doesn't meet the full 365 days requirements.

Or they could feel that you were indeed cohabiting for 20 months, and the 1 month break in the middle was acceptable.

This is the problem you face, as the visa officer has complete discretion on what the final decision will be. If you get a lenient visa officer you could be fine, but a stricter one and you will see your app rejected. It doesn't matter if you consult a dozen lawyers, the only opinion that matters is that of the visa officer.

Personally I think it will be a tough sell for common-law and high chance of rejection due to the break in cohabitation in July 2015. But it's up to you if you wanted to attempt the application. Only way to be certain is to get married.

 

[CA17CA]

if you got married it will be a much easier application, or start a complete one year together again as CL.

 

[scylla]

Ultimately it will be up to the visa officer to decide whether you meet the definition common law or if you don't (based on the break in cohabitation). Might go in your favour or it might not. Impossible for any of us to say for certain.

 

[Sneakydriver]

Hi everyone,

I know that my issue has been discussed in previous topics, but since it's kind of a specific situation, I would appreciate your opinion and insight, especially of the seniors in this forum.

Our situation:

Me and my Canadian girlfriend are in a relationship for almost five years now. We have met in Germany back then (I'm German) and we either lived together in Canada or in Germany or we were visiting each other. When I was living in Canada we managed to live together for almost a year (we were three weeks short to complete the full year) from mid-August 2014 to end July 2015 (we have filed taxes under common-law for 2015). Unfortunately I couldn't stay longer since I needed to go back to Germany to defend my thesis. She joined me end of August 2015 in Germany, with a work and travel visa (so we haven’t seen each other for about a month). She couldn't join me sooner since she needed to wrap up things and still had a job.

In Germany we lived in my parent’s house until the end of January 2016. After that, we stayed in another city (let’s call it “City A”), via AirBnb, because my girlfriend found a temporary job there. In April 2016 I found a permanent job, however, in a different city (“City B”) as she continued to work in City A. During that time, we visited each other for 1-2 months and then she quit her job in City A to live with me in City B, where I had my full-time job. As she wanted to do a Master’s and found a study course that she liked, she moved to Denmark in August 2016. In total, we can show via documents that we have lived and travelled together from August 2014 until April 2016. At this point, I’m still living in City B, and my girlfriend is still studying in Denmark. When she will finish her degree, we were thinking moving together to Canada – which means that we are planning to start the application process in the next months.

Since we are able to show that our relationship is legitimate, we didn’t think that the interruption will be a show stopper, as we thought that in the end a holistic picture is more important and that this gap won’t be that problematic. However, after reading into this topic and other posts in this forum, it seems that this gap might be a bigger deal. Another issue is that we don’t have an official rental agreement for my parents’ house, but could show through, among others, official letters from insurances etc. and my girlfriends’ work and travel visa documentation that we have lived there, and of course, my parent’s confirmation – however, I don’t know if this will be enough for the CIC. In spite of these obstacles, as mentioned earlier, we are positive that we can demonstrate that we have a legitimate relationship.

As we are, however, due to the uncertainties kind of hesitant to apply, we are thinking to maybe even consult some professionals in this matter (agencies, lawyers etc.) just to make sure that we are considered common law; having said that, I’m well aware that in the end the visa officer makes the final decision.

What do you guys think? What’s your experience?
Do you think that the interruption will be considered a show stopper or that the holistic picture has more weight on the decision to refuse an application or not?

Thanks in advance for your much appreciated feedback!

You have been together for almost 5 years, some people get married after knowing each other for 6 months, 1 year. Getting married will make everything easier and I'm sure if you have been together for 5 years, marrying doesn't sound crazy at all. In fact, my brother has been together with his GF for 2 years and they are getting married soon. 5 years dam, go get that ring . I would not recommend you to apply with what you have right now, sure your relationship is genuine but you have not met the requirements of common law 100% so from what I have seen, most likely than not, your app will be rejected. Maybe it will be approved, but the problem is, you will waste a lot of time and money if it's rejected in the end.