Just Landed 2 months ago my wife the sponsor wants a divorce.

[divorceproblem]

I have been married to my wife for 1 year. I come from Europe. I new her for a few years before. I just landed 2 months ago and one day she just told me she didn't want to be married no more and wants to file for divorce. And wants her freedom in life and not be attached. I never seen this coming.

I sold my car back home, everything I had once I got approved for PR. I quit my job that I won't get back. I am lost for words right now. I didn't eat much or sleep much these last few days and I am wondering what will happen to me now?

Do I have to go back or can I stay?

Thank you. M

 

[divorceproblem]

And if it matters I do have money and won't need help from the government. I got savings to last me over 5 years for sure without working.

 

[Iay]

I'm really sorry to hear your situation.

When did you submit your application?
If it is before October 24,2012, I believe you can keep your PR status and you can stay in Canada.

 

[divorceproblem]

I'm really sorry to hear your situation.

When did you submit your application?
If it is before October 24,2012, I believe you can keep your PR status and you can stay in Canada.

No it was after

 

[zardoz]

Do you have the exact date that the application was received at CPC-M?

 

[divorceproblem]

Do you have the exact date that the application was received at CPC-M?

Nov 1st 2012.

 

[zardoz]

That was fast processing.... Unfortunately, it does leave you vulnerable to having to return from Canada as you have been married for less than two years before submitting the application AND you have no children together.

Your choices are a) return to your home country and abandon your PR voluntarily, b) try and resolve the marital problems, or c) hope that you don't get reported under the new regulations and try and survive in Canada long enough for it to no longer be an issue.

There may be other options, but none spring to mind at the moment. Personally, I would make a real attempt at option b).

 

[costaudjoe]

He has another option. He could contact a lawyer. This is unchartered territory with the law being so recent. And most importantly the law was set up to avoid foreigners marrying Canadians for the sole purpose of obtaining PR. According to his version, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[zardoz]

In principle, I agree..

However, the change is also partially to protect Canadians against the three year sponsorship commitment in the case of relationship failure leaving them with a big debt for welfare. I have to assume that in this case, the sponsor would very much like to avail herself of that protection and will try her hardest to invoke the new regulations.

The document at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2012/2012-11-07/html/sor-dors227-eng.html does not attempt to establish blame for the breakdown or (except in the case of abuse), make any differentiation based on which party broke the relationship. I will agree that it tends to assume that the sponsored person is the non-complying party. Bear in mind that we nothing really about what has happened in this case, apart from what has been communcated by the OP. This is for CIC to investigate and make judgement on, not us.

A lawyer is always an option but I sincerely doubt that it will help if the conditional requirements have not been met.

 

[scos]

He has another option. He could contact a lawyer. This is unchartered territory with the law being so recent. And most importantly the law was set up to avoid foreigners marrying Canadians for the sole purpose of obtaining PR. According to his version, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Actually since the marriage would be gone the only reason for his staying is for the "sole purpose of obtaining PR". Also who is now responsible for him? According to the law the sponsor is free of obligation. So that means the taxpayer is now liable. Do you think CIC (or the taxpayer) is going to be happy with this?

Also the mere fact that this is legal "uncharted territory" means that the government would fight this case the hardest and throw the most resources into it in order to establish precedent.

The only way to stay is to reconcile. Otherwise you will need to either find another section of immigration law that covers you (refugee, student, FSWP, etc) and apply for it or make arrangements to return home. If you really have 5 years expenses saved then relocating back home should not be difficult. Then chalk it up to a life lesson and move on.

 

[papirico]

This case is very interesting indeed.
The sponsor is the one who wants to divorce, not the PR.
This one is the other way around. Showing that indeed PRs are also vulnerable, not just the sponsors...
I hope you find a way to move on from these devastating circumstances.
Good luck and that's how love is sometimes... cruel.

 

[costaudjoe]

Actually since the marriage would be gone the only reason for his staying is for the "sole purpose of obtaining PR". Also who is now responsible for him? According to the law the sponsor is free of obligation. So that means the taxpayer is now liable. Do you think CIC (or the taxpayer) is going to be happy with this?

Also the mere fact that this is legal "uncharted territory" means that the government would fight this case the hardest and throw the most resources into it in order to establish precedent.

The only way to stay is to reconcile. Otherwise you will need to either find another section of immigration law that covers you (refugee, student, FSWP, etc) and apply for it or make arrangements to return home. If you really have 5 years expenses saved then relocating back home should not be difficult. Then chalk it up to a life lesson and move on.

I don't agree with you.

When his wife agreed to sponsor him, there wasn't a box that she checked saying: I agree to sponsor this person for 3 years UNLESS I decide to divorce him. It is possible that she might still be on the hook as she is initiating the divorce and initially she agreed to sponsor him. And most importantly, he never entered the marriage for fraudulent reasons.

 

[scos]

I don't agree with you.

When his wife agreed to sponsor him, there wasn't a box that she checked saying: I agree to sponsor this person for 3 years UNLESS I decide to divorce him. It is possible that she might still be on the hook as she is initiating the divorce and initially she agreed to sponsor him. And most importantly, he never entered the marriage for fraudulent reasons.

Just read the rules on conditional permanent residence. It seems IF he can prove the marriage was legitimate and just broke down then he can stay and the 3 year sponsorship still exists. But you can be sure she will be trying to prove the opposite. And given the very short duration of cohabitation, I think the burden of proof will be on him.

 

[costaudjoe]

Just read the rules on conditional permanent residence. It seems IF he can prove the marriage was legitimate and didn't just break down then he can stay and the 3 year sponsorship still exists. But you can be sure she will be trying to prove the opposite. And given the very short duration of cohabitation, I think the burden of proof will be on him.

Ya for sure he has the short end of the stick.

 

[gsize]

this is unchartered territory. I would recommend talking with a lawyer. You might be ok but its not a good situation. Best of luck.