I just got PR, can I sponsor my girlfriend who I live with more than 3 years?

[handsup]

It is very confusing law for non Canadian/new immigrants. So the common law considers a roommate as well? Even if 2 boys/Girls are sharing single room?
Is it possible that he now starts counting the time period of one year and gather proof of having been common law with his GF and apply for sponsorship after s year?

 

[saria1]

Seriously? You realize that not everyone can get married - right? Just because two people aren't married doesn't mean their commitment is any less serious than a married couple.

Anyway - pointless argument. CIC definition of common law is black and white. Absolutely nothing grey about it. One year cohabitation = common law.

Seriously! When I think of marriage, I consider both straight and gay marriages, both of which are allowed in Canada. Then you have those who are separated from their spouse going through a divorce. In this situation, if you're already considered to be legally married, then how can the government consider a common law marriage, simultaneously? Wouldn't that fall under polygamy? To be honest, those are the only 3 considerations I see and took into account when referring to why they wouldn't get married, but would take on a 3yr financial commitment.

I said it was shades of gray, because they seem to require so much documentation to prove common law, but, if you merely state you've been residing with a partner they will be quick to jump on the misrepresentation bandwagon, with little proof aside from what you said. At least that is the vibe I get from the responses.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me, none of this even applies to me. I was just trying to understand it better. Sorry for asking questions and trying to open a dialogue to help better understand this scenario. Seems there are some on here who come with the claws out and ready to attack for someone trying to understand something. I'm seeing very little tolerance is demonstrated.

 

[zardoz]

It is very confusing law for non Canadian/new immigrants. So the common law considers a roommate as well? Even if 2 boys/Girls are sharing single room?
Is it possible that he now starts counting the time period of one year and gather proof of having been common law with his GF and apply for sponsorship after s year?

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

 

[handsup]

In the end, it doesn't matter to me, none of this even applies to me. I was just trying to understand it better. Sorry for asking questions and trying to open a dialogue to help better understand this scenario. Seems there are some on here who come with the claws out and ready to attack for someone trying to understand something. I'm seeing very little tolerance is demonstrated.

I agree with you 110%, most of the senior members are doing the same

 

[Rob_TO]

Is it possible that he now starts counting the time period of one year and gather proof of having been common law with his GF and apply for sponsorship after s year?

No it's not possible. Since they were in fact common-law before, and she wasn't declared on his application, she is now banned forever under family class. It would not matter if they lived together 1 year again, or if they now got married even.

The only way to sponsor her now is to completely lie on the application about ever living together in the past, so basically committing immigration fraud.

In this situation, if you're already considered to be legally married, then how can the government consider a common law marriage, simultaneously? Wouldn't that fall under polygamy?

Common-law is not "marriage". It is common-law. Many people do not believe in marriage for their own personal reasons, so are quite happy to spend their entire lives with someone as their common-law partner.

It gets even more confusing in that the 1-year rule is used for immigration and tax purposes. Then on top of that, each province in Canada has their own rules that could require 3 years cohabitation to be recognized by the province as common-law, when it comes to separation legal issues (like splitting assets). In some provinces like Quebec there is no such thing as common-law.

But since CIC and CRA are FEDERAL institutions governing ALL of Canada, then for CIC and CRA purposes everyone in Canada needs to follow the 1-year rule for immigration and taxes.

 

[saria1]

I agree with you 110%, most of the senior members are doing the same

Thank god, it's not only me! At the same time, I'm sorry it's happening to you too.

 

[zardoz]

The main reason that this is such a big issue with regards to immigration is the following scenario.

1) Couple live together as "common-law".
2) One of them is eligible to apply for permanent residency.
3) The other is medically inadmissible due to excessive demand.

If applying as single, the eligible person would be granted PR status.
If applying as a common-law couple, PR status would be refused for BOTH.

As sponsorship via the Family Class removes the excessive demand restrictions, it would be a loophole if CIC permitted the scenario proposed by the OP. This is why it's strictly prohibited. CIC will examine the application and work on the basis of requiring proof of anything that is to the advantage of the applicants.

 

[Christoph100]

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

Well I think it can be grey area...think about it. Living together for 12 months ...the key is "like a marriage" if nothing is jointed how can it be proven it was just not living together as Room mates?

There is an awful lot of Room mates that must be common law and do not know it..
Be like the poster earlier mentioned begin now as agreed to both parties that the relationship has progressed to the point of now "living together" begin jointing things etc. It can not be proven before that time that it was common law in my opinion.
Nothing was reported to CIC nor CRA providing the taxes were filed separately then it was just room mates.

 

[screech339]

Well I think it can be grey area...think about it. Living together for 12 months ...the key is "like a marriage" if nothing is jointed how can it be proven it was just not living together as Room mates?

There is an awful lot of Room mates that must be common law and do not know it..
Be like the poster earlier mentioned begin now as agreed to both parties that the relationship has progressed to the point of now "living together" begin jointing things etc. It can not be proven before that time that it was common law in my opinion.
Nothing was reported to CIC nor CRA providing the taxes were filed separately then it was just room mates.

If they were "just roommates", each one would have their own rental agreements. If they don't have rental agreements, CIC and CBSA can assume, and they will, they were living together as common law.

 

[zardoz]

Well I think it can be grey area...think about it. Living together for 12 months ...the key is "like a marriage" if nothing is jointed how can it be proven it was just not living together as Room mates?

There is an awful lot of Room mates that must be common law and do not know it..
Be like the poster earlier mentioned begin now as agreed to both parties that the relationship has progressed to the point of now "living together" begin jointing things etc. It can not be proven before that time that it was common law in my opinion.
Nothing was reported to CIC nor CRA providing the taxes were filed separately then it was just room mates.

In this scenario, why would a "roommate" subsequently attempt to sponsor as a member of the Family Class? CIC would be well founded in the supposition that they are, and have been, in a common-law partnership. The onus is on the applicants to prove that they were not.

Fortunately, there is a get-round for the OP in this case. He must renounce his PR status and reapply from scratch as a common-law (or married) couple.

 

[Christoph100]

If they were "just roommates", each one would have their own rental agreements. If they don't have rental agreements, CIC and CBSA can assume, and they will, they were living together as common law.

Correct and in that case they would be free to attempt the sponsorship providing they had their own rental agreements before the 1 yr showing the jointed rental agreement.

 

[handsup]

No it's not possible. Since they were in fact common-law before, and she wasn't declared on his application, she is now banned forever under family class. It would not matter if they lived together 1 year again, or if they now got married even.

The only way to sponsor her now is to completely lie on the application about ever living together in the past, so basically committing immigration fraud.

Thank you so much for detailed clarification. Okay just to get knowledge; if one has made such mistakes unintentionally then you told a way that to lie and as result committing the immigration fraud.
Is it possible too that the GF now returns back to her home country, the guy goes too and they marry there and the guy comes back to CA to sponsor her as his wife? Would it be still an immigration fraud?

Thank god, it's not only me! At the same time, I'm sorry it's happening to you too.

Yes I have faced but there are also seniors who love to help you and increase your knowledge with facts/rules by stating direct links to those rules URLs. So I am lucky that I ve met such members too

 

[handsup]

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

Thank you it helped

 

[zardoz]

Thank you so much for detailed clarification. Okay just to get knowledge; if one has made such mistakes unintentionally then you told a way that to lie and as result committing the immigration fraud.
Is it possible too that the GF now returns back to her home country, the guy goes too and they marry there and the guy comes back to CA to sponsor her as his wife? Would it be still an immigration fraud?

Yes I have faced but there are also seniors who love to help you and increase your knowledge with facts/rules by stating direct links to those rules URLs. So I am lucky that I ve met such members too

Yes, it's still fraud. You cannot rewrite the relationship history.

I would also add, that there are many cases on CANLII that give case law support to what has been communicated here.

 

[saria1]

Yes I have faced but there are also seniors who love to help you and increase your knowledge with facts/rules by stating direct links to those rules URLs. So I am lucky that I ve met such members too

Yes you are correct! I'd like to say thank you to Screech, Rob_to and Zardoz for helpful, non judgmental, engaging in open dialogue, responses. ;D