Post taken from other forum:
here is manual office use
http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/...h/op/op02e.pdf
OP 2 Processing Members of the Family Class
2006-11-14 45
Officers may need to closely examine evidence that a marriage took place. Photographs or other documents used as evidence of a marriage can be altered. Marriage certificates and other documents may be fraudulent.
In some instances, home visits may be used to establish cohabitation in the case of a marriage or common-law relationship.
Some factors that may be considered and that are common to marriage, common-law relationships and conjugal partner relationships are as follows:
• Do the spouses, common-law or conjugal partners have a good knowledge of each other’s personal circumstances, background and family situation?
• The immigration status of the applicant and the timing of the marriage, common-law relationship or conjugal partner relationship.
• Is there evidence that both parties have planned their immigration or immigration of the foreign born spouse/common-law partners or conjugal partner jointly and over a period of time?
• Is there a history of multiple marriages, divorces, common-law relationships or conjugal partner relationships?
• Have previous relationships clearly ended and does the period of separation seem reasonable in the circumstances?
• Do the applicants speak a common language?
12.1. Marriage of convenience
Factors specific to a marriage of convenience include:
• The circumstances and duration of the courtship.
• The wedding itself (where it was celebrated, what type of marriage, who attended).
• Did the marriage ceremony conform to the beliefs and culture of the participants?
• Is there evidence that the spouses have lived together?
12.2. Common-law partnership of convenience
While there are many similar factors to consider when assessing common-law relationships, there are some differences. Differences in age, race, religion or culture in some countries may prevent individuals from getting married and may lead them to form a common-law relationship instead.
Therefore, such differences should not necessarily be viewed as an indicator of a relationship of convenience where the individuals claim to be in a common-law relationship. Knowledge of the laws and customs of the country is essential in a determination of how differences between the partners should be interpreted.
Other factors that may be considered when assessing a common-law relationship:
• How the couple met and the circumstances that led them to decide to live together.
• The length of time the parties knew one another before they established a common-law relationship.
OP 2 Processing Members of the Family Class
2006-11-14 46
• How convincing is the evidence that the couple have lived together for at least one year? Is it sufficient? (This does not apply to persons unable to live together for reasons of persecution and penal control. See Foreign common-law registrations and same-sex marriages, Section 5.41 above.)
• Have the parties combined their affairs to the extent that a reasonable person would expect of a couple in a conjugal relationship (vs. what could be expected of “room-mates”)? (See Recognition of a common-law partnership, Section 5.34 above.)
• Do the couple demonstrate the level of interdependence expected of persons in a conjugal relationship? (See Assessment of conjugal relationships Section 5.26 above.)
• Is there evidence that the couple has established their own household and lives separately from their families in a conjugal relationship (rather than a sibling relationship), even if co-located with other family members? In some cases, DNA testing may be required to ensure that applicants are not blood relatives.
Procedural fairness requires that officers inform applicants of any doubts about the relationship and give them a chance to respond.
CPC-M may arrange an interview with a sponsor, but officers must provide specific questions for the sponsor to answer.
Case notes must contain sufficient detail to support the decision. See OP 1 for information on case notes.
12.3. Conjugal partner relationship of convenience
Most of the factors discussed above are relevant when assessing a conjugal partner relationship.
The main difference is the emphasis placed on continuous cohabitation. As conjugal partners have been unable to cohabit continuously for one year, officers should focus on the genuineness of the relationship and the evidence of interdependence, mutual commitment and exclusivity. (See Sections 5.25 and 5.26 above.)
Although cohabitation is not a requirement, officers should consider the amount of time the partners have spent together. Another factor to consider is whether the partners have attempted to obtain visas to visit one another or to immigrate to one another’s countries. A claim that a conjugal relationship exists without much evidence of time spent together may suggest a relationship of convenience. As well, officers should ask why the couple has been unable to cohabit. If it is evident that they could have lived together and chose not to, then this may indicate that there is not a mutual commitment to a shared life together and may suggest a relationship of convenience.
Other factors to consider are previous marriages or common-law relationships, particularly if a conjugal partner claims that the relationship with the sponsor has ended and they are now applying to sponsor another conjugal partner or their spouse to whom they are still legally married.
(See What happens if the common-law partner (principal applicant) is married to another person.
As I said this was posted by a member to serve as a guideline. Every case is different.
