I came across this

[Avadava]

http://www.cicnews.com/2013/11/scope-family-sponsorship-2014-113069.html

Any thoughts on the phrases in bold quoted from the article?

"Family sponsorship applicants in 2014 can look forward to streamlined processes and fast processing times across the board. This is thanks to efforts that CIC has made to prioritize the processing of family applications, thus making good on its stated commitment to family reunification.

I am a little bit confused as to why this article feels the need to emphasize the year 2014.

EDIT: Sorry, posted wrong link at first. Updated now with the correct article.

 

[SenoritaBella]

Music to my ears!

 

[Step]

Giggles , sounds like another load if crap.
Time will tell but I'm not holding my breath.
Hope it's true.

 

[Graihn]

Giggles , sounds like another load if crap.
Time will tell but I'm not holding my breath.
Hope it's true.

I just read in the fine print, that they will put every application sent in during 2013 on hold to streamline January 2014 common-law applicants.

 

[Graihn]

Fine, might have been kidding . Lol

Anyhow, a question, not that it matters, but:

Am I considered to be over the 2 year relationship if we have been together since September 2011 til now, but we never had 1 year of continuous cohabitation until December 2012-December 2013?

Meaning: would not be a subject of condition 51?

 

[Ponga]

Fine, might have been kidding . Lol

Anyhow, a question, not that it matters, but:

Am I considered to be over the 2 year relationship if we have been together since September 2011 til now, but we never had 1 year of continuous cohabitation until December 2012-December 2013?

Meaning: would not be a subject of condition 51?

No. You will likely receive conditional PR.

 

[Step]

I just read in the fine print, that they will put every application sent in during 2013 on hold to streamline January 2014 common-law applicants.

Would'nt surprise me if they did. Sounds like something they might try.

 

[Alurra71]

Fine, might have been kidding . Lol

Anyhow, a question, not that it matters, but:

Am I considered to be over the 2 year relationship if we have been together since September 2011 til now, but we never had 1 year of continuous cohabitation until December 2012-December 2013?

Meaning: would not be a subject of condition 51?

I agree with Ponga, you are likely going to receive condition 51.

I don't know what all the fuss is about having that. It doesn't mean a damned thing in the long run, unless of course you never intended to be with your sponsor once you got to Canada

 

[zardoz]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2012/ob480.asp is not absolutely clear but I read it as if the test for the two years of preexisting relationship starts on either the day that you marry or the date that your relationship becomes "common-law". In other words, AFTER you have already been together for 12 continuous months.

 

[Ponga]

What?!?! Something from CIC that's unclear?!?!?!

Add to that the fact that the entire time that an application is being processed...up until the time a person receives their COPR, should still count towards that 2 years. If a person submits their application after 1 year and 10 months, but the PR process takes 1 year and 3 months to get COPR...shouldn't that person be deemed to have been in a CL relationship for 3 years and 1 month when they officially become a PR?

 

[Alurra71]

What?!?! Something from CIC that's unclear?!?!?!

Add to that the fact that the entire time that an application is being processed...up until the time a person receives their COPR, should still count towards that 2 years. If a person submits their application after 1 year and 10 months, but the PR process takes 1 year and 3 months to get COPR...shouldn't that person be deemed to have been in a CL relationship for 3 years and 1 month when they officially become a PR?

Ponga, Ponga, Ponga *shaking her head* Are you STILL trying to apply logic to the logic free zone aka CIC?

 

[Graihn]

I agree with Ponga, you are likely going to receive condition 51.

I don't know what all the fuss is about having that. It doesn't mean a damned thing in the long run, unless of course you never intended to be with your sponsor once you got to Canada

I don't care if it's conditional, was curious. I would have no reason to leave Sweden unless for my partner

 

[Ponga]

Ponga, Ponga, Ponga *shaking her head* Are you STILL trying to apply logic to the logic free zone aka CIC?

Musta had a senior moment.

Have you seen my keys?!?!

Seriously though...the time should accrue from AOR through COPR, dontcha think?!

 

[zardoz]

What?!?! Something from CIC that's unclear?!?!?!

Add to that the fact that the entire time that an application is being processed...up until the time a person receives their COPR, should still count towards that 2 years. If a person submits their application after 1 year and 10 months, but the PR process takes 1 year and 3 months to get COPR...shouldn't that person be deemed to have been in a CL relationship for 3 years and 1 month when they officially become a PR?

Nope... The decision on whether conditional PR applies is made very early in processing. I suspect that the locked in date rule applies. I know this from my own GCMS notes, where they incorrectly applied the condition. It was never re-checked or corrected at the London visa office.

 

[Alurra71]

I don't care if it's conditional, was curious. I would have no reason to leave Sweden unless for my partner

That wasn't meant as a slight to you, but more in general really. There are many who get agitated with this condition which makes no sense to me.