married couples vs common law and congical processing

[swervetech69]

For family class is there a difference in processing times between the three groups, married couples, common law and congical? I cant see anything on any government websites that show this but to me it makes sence that married couples would take preferance over the other 2, and would likely be easier to process. Feel free to comment or tell about your experience/ opinion

 

[CharlieD10]

There is no preference of one group over the others. However, each group is based on a different premise, and it is up to the couple to be able to prove they can be processed under the type they are applying as. Based on individual circumstances, you might find that even though a couple of each type submits their application at the exact same time, one might be completed before the others, even if they apply through the exact same visa office. It has nothing to do with being given preference, it's all about the application, and obviously, as each relationship is unique, so is each application.

 

[scylla]

I don't think married couples are necessarily easier to process. Several years ago I read an article that indicated that fraud rates (i.e. marriage or relationship of convenience to gain entry into Canada) are much higher in married applications (in comparison to common law) and this creates a significant amount of additional work and overhead.

 

[swervetech69]

I can see some logic in that there could be more fraud cases among married couples, but I also feel the Canadian government should reunite people with serious relationships faster than congical relationships or commonlaw relationships. I mean, anyone can date, why would that make them legit candidates for immigration. If you cant even make the commitment to get married or at least live together how serious of a relationship is it? Im sure this will piss some people off, but its just one mans opinion

 

[Midcityjohn]

It does make a difference. Marriages are harder to get out of. Just look at the PR app, it asks way more from common law couples.

 

[scylla]

I can see some logic in that there could be more fraud cases among married couples, but I also feel the Canadian government should reunite people with serious relationships faster than congical relationships or commonlaw relationships. I mean, anyone can date, why would that make them legit candidates for immigration. If you cant even make the commitment to get married or at least live together how serious of a relationship is it? Im sure this will piss some people off, but its just one mans opinion

For the record - I'm married and sponsored my husband as a married spouse. However I don't believe that the relationships of people who are married are necessarily any more serious than those who are common law or conjugal. But like you said - it's a matter of opinion. Many of us have a much broader and more inclusive definition of "commitment".

There are many situations where people cannot marry or live common law for real and difficult (often painful) reasons. Example: Man is from Canada and woman is from Philippines. Woman was once married but has been separated for years. It is next to impossible to get an annulment in the Philippines - so she can't re-marry. Woman can't get a TRV to visit Canada to live with man and get common law status. Man cannot visit the Philippines for more than a few months since he's a foreigner. So they can't marry and can't live common law. Should their relationship be classified as "not serious" due to circumstances that are beyond their control? In my opinion the answer is: absolutely not.

As for common law... If two people have been living together for 10 years, have children and have combined all of their assets - is their relationship less serious than a couple who've know each other for three months, never lived together and just got married? By your definition - the married couple has the "serious relationship". But if I had to place a bet on who's going to be together 10 years from now - it would be the common law couple.

Things simply aren't that black and white in life...

But again - that's just my opinion.

 

[swervetech69]

I agree that there are some painful circumstances such as you described, but who knows how common that is. If congical relationships are the same as marriages then why get married? Marriage nowdays is still the strongest way to legally prove a comittment, espically when outside of Canada.

 

[AmericaninQuebec]

I agree that there are some painful circumstances such as you described, but who knows how common that is. If congical relationships are the same as marriages then why get married? Marriage nowdays is still the strongest way to legally prove a comittment, espically when outside of Canada.

Because for some people it's simply not something they want to do or part of their belief system. Even here in Canada the choice of a common law union over marriage has been growing for the past few decades (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/marriage/). That article is from 2005 and at that time 30% of couples in Quebec were common law. I have been in Quebec for over 1.5 yrs now, and I would argue that it's much higher than that, and there is definitely a cultural aversion by many to marriage. When my husband chose to marry me a lot of his friends and family asked him why he was getting married at age 30, before he had children with me or we had lived together for 10 or 15 yrs. For us marriage made sense, it was something we wanted, but it was considered a unique choice by many we know.

My point is, I think it's important that the Canadian government recognize that even amongst its own population there are many people choosing not to get married, yet to live together, start families, and in all other ways function as a married couple would. Even though I'm married, I'm glad that the Canadian government is not in the business of forcing an agenda of marriage on anyone who wishes to immigrate to be with their partner.

As for conjugal relationships, as was already pointed out they're an important exception for people not able to be married or live together yet still have a strong and very real commitment to each other.

I don't think it's our place or the government's to judge people simply because they have chosen not to get married. I think it's important that the government find the relationship to be real before allowing the person to immigrate, but I for one am glad that Canada is a country that lets its residents decide how to live in their relationships and express their love for one another.

 

[AllisonVSC]

I was processed in the conjugal class in less than 3 months from start to finish. I applied Aug 8 and landed Nov 4 in 2009. We are not a same sex couple, we have no barrier to marriage, and we've have been in a relationship since early 2004. We choose not to marry (though we did seriously consider it last summer), and most people who know us assume we are married because we are committed to following our life path together.

While a legal status of married may be "strong proof" of a commitment, it is thankfully not the only means of proof for immigration in family class. I believe our application and the resulting processing time are proof that 1.) in terms of immigration proceedings there is no preference in processing married couples over common law and conjugal couples, and 2.) there is no attempt to define all married couples as having a "more serious" relationship and therefore worthy of preference.

 

[sidkrose]

I can see some logic in that there could be more fraud cases among married couples, but I also feel the Canadian government should reunite people with serious relationships faster than congical relationships or commonlaw relationships. I mean, anyone can date, why would that make them legit candidates for immigration. If you cant even make the commitment to get married or at least live together how serious of a relationship is it? Im sure this will piss some people off, but its just one mans opinion

I'm sorry, but I take pretty great offence to this. I am common-law with my partner, and I think we have a stronger, more serious relationship than plenty of people I've met who are married. We not just "dating". We're partners. To be approved as common-law or conjugal you can't just be dating. Do you even know what conjugal means? It means "Marriage-like". It doesn't mean fiances. It doesn't mean dating. It doesn't mean boyfriend/girlfriend. It means married in all but the document. We've lived together for over two years and maintained a very strong long-distance relationship while our case was being processed. And we were processed very quickly.

How dare you comment on people's commitment that you are apparently too narrow minded to understand. If we weren't equals, do you really think Canadian immigration law would see us that way?

 

[mameelynn]

I personally don't see why people get married at all if it isn't because of waiting for certain things without marriage. Yes I'm married to my husband but it was a religious choice. We didn't live together or sleep together until after we were married so it made sense to get married but if we weren't waiting for marriage I wouldn't have seen any reason to get married at all as long as we lived in a place that gave all couples equal rights. I think that CIC should look at the length of time people have been in a relationship more so than what kind of spouse/common law/congical they are applying with. I do think that couples that have been together for over 5 years should be looked at differently and processed faster than the ones that have only know each other for less than that no matter what title they are filling under.

 

[Kedeisha]

I personally don't see why people get married at all if it isn't because of waiting for certain things without marriage. Yes I'm married to my husband but it was a religious choice. We didn't live together or sleep together until after we were married so it made sense to get married but if we weren't waiting for marriage I wouldn't have seen any reason to get married at all as long as we lived in a place that gave all couples equal rights. I think that CIC should look at the length of time people have been in a relationship more so than what kind of spouse/common law/congical they are applying with. I do think that couples that have been together for over 5 years should be looked at differently and processed faster than the ones that have only know each other for less than that no matter what title they are filling under.

Although this is what you feel that defines a relationship the length that is not accurate lots of people have children and stay "together" for their kids but they are not together so the length while a good argument is not the only basis of a relationship as a person determine to fraud the system will have a child and stay with them for the preset amt of years and onc that is done they will go on their merry ways, remember a child doesn't prove there was a relationship it just proved that the parties had intercourse same with a marriage certificate being that that could be fraudulent that doesnt prove that there was a marriage it just prove a "ceremony" took place again.

Every relationship is unique some choose marriage, other choose common law or even conjugal we cant just say a person is this way because of this reason...

 

[Zouk Princesse]

I can see some logic in that there could be more fraud cases among married couples, but I also feel the Canadian government should reunite people with serious relationships faster than congical relationships or commonlaw relationships. I mean, anyone can date, why would that make them legit candidates for immigration. If you cant even make the commitment to get married or at least live together how serious of a relationship is it? Im sure this will piss some people off, but its just one mans opinion

I see where you're coming from and personally don't think anyone should be offended. In reality though, relationships are so different and so complex that it is extremely difficult to make accurate blanket statements about any category. While it is true that not every marriage is a shining example of partnership, at least (most) married couples made the commitment and that deserves some credit. I have spoken to many common law couples and am yet to hear a compelling reason for not getting married, other than the honest ones who admit "I'm just not ready for that commitment", which validates the argument that it's easier to just live together. Situations where marriage is not legally or physically possible obviously are in a class of their own.

 

[sidkrose]

I see where you're coming from and personally don't think anyone should be offended. In reality though, relationships are so different and so complex that it is extremely difficult to make accurate blanket statements about any category. While it is true that not every marriage is a shining example of partnership, at least (most) married couples made the commitment and that deserves some credit. I have spoken to many common law couples and am yet to hear a compelling reason for not getting married, other than the honest ones who admit "I'm just not ready for that commitment", which validates the argument that it's easier to just live together. Situations where marriage is not legally or physically possible obviously are in a class of their own.

How about "marriage is an antiquated institution and I don't see the need for it?" How about "if I do get married, the only difference in our relationship will be that we threw a bit party for all our friends and family, and maybe went on a trip together afterwards, and since we're poor students, who are broke as f***, that isn't likely to happen any time soon".

I don't want to rant here, but I am SO tired of having to defend being in a common-law relationship rather than being married, to people. If I didn't have to justify that decision to the Canadian government, why do I have to defend it to anyone else???

 

[emrn]

For the record - I'm married and sponsored my husband as a married spouse. However I don't believe that the relationships of people who are married are necessarily any more serious than those who are common law or conjugal. But like you said - it's a matter of opinion. Many of us have a much broader and more inclusive definition of "commitment".

There are many situations where people cannot marry or live common law for real and difficult (often painful) reasons. Example: Man is from Canada and woman is from Philippines. Woman was once married but has been separated for years. It is next to impossible to get an annulment in the Philippines - so she can't re-marry. Woman can't get a TRV to visit Canada to live with man and get common law status. Man cannot visit the Philippines for more than a few months since he's a foreigner. So they can't marry and can't live common law. Should their relationship be classified as "not serious" due to circumstances that are beyond their control? In my opinion the answer is: absolutely not.

As for common law... If two people have been living together for 10 years, have children and have combined all of their assets - is their relationship less serious than a couple who've know each other for three months, never lived together and just got married? By your definition - the married couple has the "serious relationship". But if I had to place a bet on who's going to be together 10 years from now - it would be the common law couple.

Things simply aren't that black and white in life...

But again - that's just my opinion.

That was a very good point. And for the record swervetech69 it's not congical it's conjugal. I actually take this in offense cause like what Scylla said there are circumstances that are far beyond our control and I think it is unfair to judge those who are in a common law and conjugal partnership to be less serious than those who are married. Having a piece of paper doesn't necessarily prove that you are in a more serious relationship. I am in a conjugal relationship because I am a Filipina who was previously married here in the Philippines. Having an annulment here is like going through a hole in the needle that I wouldn't even wish it to my worst enemy. I met my Canadian partner (were not same sex by the way). We are in a very serious committed long distance relationship. I just think it's unfair for someone to be judging someone else's relationship and how serious it is with just being based on us not being married. It's just so tiring that we have to defend ourselves all the time why we are in a common law or in a conjugal partnership that people try to look down on our commitment. Not because you are married means you are any better than the rest of us. I wish people would just stop judging other people's relationship. Why can't people just respect other people's choices and situations and just try to mind their own business, why not just concentrate on your relationship instead of trying to make us feel that we're less serious and stuff like that just because were not married.