Martial Status - Common Law or Single

[Anon2018]

Thanks everyone for helping me out. If I understood this correctly, I should definitely apply as common law as long as I can prove it in order to avoid misrepresentation.
I think we need extra points. According to CRS calculator I'm getting 456 and if she gets same IELTS score as I did, she will have 470. Nevertheless I don't want to make this process more complicated than it is.We are definitely considered common law under Canadian regulations.

We both have Croatian citizenship and we are currently living in Germany. I'm not 100% sure how these countries treat common law but getting enough documentation that proves our relationship won't be hard (same address, bills, holidays, flights etc).

 

[Anon2018]

Actually I got one more question. I just applied for EE today.
I answered the question about my marital status as non-accompanying common law and stated that my girlfriend did not attend an IELTS exam. So she will start preparing now and she might apply for EE in January 2019, does she have to state her marital status as non-accompanying common law as well or somehow differently? This confuses me a bit.
Does "accompanying" mean the same moment I land in Canada or is it an undefined future time period?

 

[tobs]

Actually I got one more question. I just applied for EE today.
I answered the question about my marital status as non-accompanying common law and stated that my girlfriend did not attend an IELTS exam. So she will start preparing now and she might apply for EE in January 2019, does she have to state her marital status as non-accompanying common law as well or somehow differently? This confuses me a bit.
Does "accompanying" mean the same moment I land in Canada or is it an undefined future time period?

Non-accompanying means she's not coming with you, so she's not included in your application as a dependent.
When she applies, you'll also be non-accompanying because you might already be in Canada and won't need to be added to her application as a dependent.

 

[Anon2018]

Non-accompanying means she's not coming with you, so she's not included in your application as a dependent.
When she applies, you'll also be non-accompanying because you might already be in Canada and won't need to be added to her application as a dependent.

Thanks!

 

[Jacko007]

This is incorrect and bad advice. The laws of other countries are irrelevant. You aren't applying to immigrate to these other countries - you are applying to immigrate to Canada. All that matters is IRCC rules regarding status. If you have been living with someone for a year or more then you are common law and MUST declare this individual as your common law partner in your immigration application to Canada (even if common law status isn't recognized by the country where you are living). Failure to declare this individual as your common law partner is misrepresentation( (lying in your application) and means you will never be able to sponsor them in the future.

HAHA, listen to this:

I have been living with my girlfriend for the last 10 years, so we are common law (right?). But 3 days ago she said 'it is over' and stormed out, leaving our house. Now I am sad, and I want to immigrate to Canada.

But, am I single or common law? My facebook profile is full of our pictures dating 10 years back. Her profile also. So how can I prove our relationship ended? Do I need to obtain a document from court? Or does Canada have a registry of all started and ended relationships? Please advice, I really miss her...

 

[scylla]

HAHA, listen to this:

I have been living with my girlfriend for the last 10 years, so we are common law (right?). But 3 days ago she said 'it is over' and stormed out, leaving our house. Now I am sad, and I want to immigrate to Canada.

But, am I single or common law? My facebook profile is full of our pictures dating 10 years back. Her profile also. So how can I prove our relationship ended? Do I need to obtain a document from court? Or does Canada have a registry of all started and ended relationships? Please advice, I really miss her...

You can immigrate to Canada on your own. Your relationship is over and you'll never want to bring her to Canada. So you're good.

The problem is in instances where two people have lived together for a year or more and are common law by IRCC's definition - then one immigrates to Canada saying they are single - then tries to sponsor their partner afterwards through family class and is denied for failing to declare that partner. No - Canada certainly doesn't have a registry of common law relationships (I know you were being sarcastic). However the background check process and various other documents submitted as part of the spousal/common law sponsorship process make it very easy to see if someone was common law before they immigrated (i.e. easy for IRCC to see that the sponsor and applicant shared a common address for more than a year) and should have declared common law status. This is how people are "caught" so to speak. We see far too many refusals in the Family Sponsorship section of the forum for this specific reason and it's very sad since there are no grounds for a successful appeal. Applicants don't understand the common law rule, fail to declare their partner, and are then told by IRCC they can never sponsor them once they try to submit a family sponsorship app after they land. IRCC can also chose to revoke the sponsor's PR status for failing to declare their common law partner in their original immigration application (i.e. misrepresentation). However based on what we've seen on this forum, this rule is very very rarely applied. The big impact is that the partner can never be sponsored.

 

[Jacko007]

The problem is in instances where two people have lived together for a year or more and are common law by IRCC's definition - then one immigrates to Canada saying they are single - then tries to sponsor their partner afterwards through family class and is denied for failing to declare that partner.

And solution here is very simple: such a couple can always get married. And answering your next question: yes, dear immigration officer, I met this lovely gal 3 days ago and we got married on Monday.

 

[scylla]

And solution here is very simple: such a couple can always get married. And answering your next question: yes, dear immigration officer, I met this lovely gal 3 days ago and we got married on Monday.

Unfortunately this doesn't address the problem at all. Again, background checks and other information submitted as part of the application will easily show the couple was common law based on addresses and other info. Failing to declare the partner excludes them from being sponsored forever (even after marriage). So IRCC will still refuse the application. We have seen plenty of evidence of that on this forum.

Saying that you just met someone three days ago when you've actually lived with them also means you have to commit misrepresentation in your application. That puts the applicant on track for a five year ban from Canada.

It's quite amazing how easily IRCC is able to piece together all of this. I guess background checks give them a massive amount of data to work with.

 

[Jacko007]

Unfortunately this doesn't address the problem at all. Again, background checks and other information submitted as part of the application will easily show the couple was common law based on addresses and other info. Failing to declare the partner excludes them from being sponsored forever (even after marriage). So IRCC will still refuse the application. We have seen plenty of evidence of that on this forum.

Saying that you just met someone three days ago when you've actually lived with them also means you have to commit misrepresentation in your application. That puts the applicant on track for a five year ban from Canada.

It's quite amazing how easily IRCC is able to piece together all of this. I guess background checks give them a massive amount of data to work with.

What other info? What addresses? I lived with a few past girlfriends under one roof for more than year and we never had the same address on any of the documents. Such relationships are impossible to prove (again, unless there exists a registry of all past relationships).

 

[scylla]

What other info? What addresses? I lived with a few past girlfriends under one roof for more than year and we never had the same address on any of the documents. Such relationships are impossible to prove (again, unless there exists a registry of all past relationships).

I'm not going to argue with you further - I think your opinion is set and you're entitled to it. All I want to reinforce to others reading this thread is that we see a couple of cases a month in the Family Sponsorship section of the forum where spousal or common law sponsorship is refused due to a common law relationship that existed prior to the sponsor landing. These refusals cover all areas of the globe - and have certainly included countries where common law relationships aren't officially recognized and where record-keeping is spotty. My best advice is don't underestimate what IRCC can find out.

My reasons for passing on this information is to ensure others don't end up in the same situation as those refused in the Family Sponsorship section of the forum. It's really a horrible situation to be in that has very significant impacts to those involved. We hate reading these stories in the Family Sponsorship section of the forum - it's too late to help at that point.

 

[tobs]

I'm not going to argue with you further - I think your opinion is set and you're entitled to it. All I want to reinforce to others reading this thread is that we see a couple of cases a month in the Family Sponsorship section of the forum where spousal or common law sponsorship is refused due to a common law relationship that existed prior to the sponsor landing. These refusals cover all areas of the globe - and have certainly included countries where common law relationships aren't officially recognized and where record-keeping is spotty. My best advice is don't underestimate what IRCC can find out.

My reasons for passing on this information is to ensure others don't end up in the same situation as those refused in the Family Sponsorship section of the forum. It's really a horrible situation to be in that has very significant impacts to those involved. We hate reading these stories in the Family Sponsorship section of the forum - it's too late to help at that point.

Thank you for taking the time to explain over and over despite @Jacko007 insistence/arguments.
I agree with you and I hope others considering this issue will yield to the side of caution.

 

[Anon2018]

I'm not able to find one more answer.
I'm getting my documents ready before ITA because I'm spending the entire December out of the country and I can't find out if a non-accompanying common law partner has to get police certificates and medical exam done during my 60 days time limit. My girlfriend won't be joining me for at least a year and all those documents won't be valid by that time. Does anybody know anything about this situation so that she can also start getting the documents ready?

 

[EE456]

You can disagree as much as you want, but this is more de facto than de jure.

Some countries will not allow couples who do not show certificate or proof of marriage, or relationship by blood to have their names written in the address, utility bills, or bank accounts as per the laws of that country. So it becomes impossible to meet the requirements. This is because for banks, do not allows rights of survivorship which bypasses the probate estate and moves directly to the surviving account holder. Similarly tenancy laws of many countries do not allow people to jointly hold tenancy to a property when they are not married or related by blood. If the municipal laws permit such documentation, then that country will also recognize common-law relationship in most cases.

Further, See:

Sponsoring a previously-separated spouse as a common-law partner
A foreign national is not a member of the family class if they were a non-accompanying family member of a sponsor and were not examined [R117(9)(d)]. A legally separated spouse of a sponsor who was a non-accompanying family member and was not disclosed and examined because, at that time, the sponsor was in a common-law or conjugal partner relationship cannot be sponsored by the spouse in Canada.

In such cases, an officer must determine that R4.1 does not apply, i.e. that the common-law or conjugal partnership was not dissolved solely for immigration purposes, and that the new relationship with the previously separated spouse is genuine.

The onus is on the sponsor to provide acceptable evidence that the previous relationship has ended.

If information provided in the IMM 5532 (Relationship Information and Sponsorship Evaluation) (PDF, 2.21 MB) is insufficient, an officer may request additional evidence, such as:

• a mortgage or lease
• documents showing the same address for both, e.g. government-issued identification documents, driver’s license, insurance policies
• proof of joint bank accounts, e.g. bank statement or a letter from a financial institution
• documents from other institutions or government authorities, such as the Canada Revenue Agency, that indicate a marital relationship

Divorce and subsequent remarriage do not overcome exclusion under R117(9)(d). If a Canadian citizen or permanent resident submits an application to sponsor a previously separated spouse, the previously separated spouse may be excluded if they were married but not examined at the time that the sponsor applied for permanent residence.

<https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/non-economic-classes/family-class-determining-spouse/assessing-common.html>

Also see <https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/non-economic-classes/family-class-determining-spouse/legality.html>

We are living in a country that doesn't recognize common-law relationships and we have applied as common-law for PR as we have demonstrated our status of common-law, that is, living in a marriage-like relationship having provided documents and evidence substantiating that fact.

What counts is Canada's laws pertaining to common-law, otherwise only people from a handful countries can apply as common-law.

 

[EE456]

I'm not able to find one more answer.
I'm getting my documents ready before ITA because I'm spending the entire December out of the country and I can't find out if a non-accompanying common law partner has to get police certificates and medical exam done during my 60 days time limit. My girlfriend won't be joining me for at least a year and all those documents won't be valid by that time. Does anybody know anything about this situation so that she can also start getting the documents ready?

I don't understand what your confusion is about. You and her don't want to go to Canada together, you apply separately and in both applications you state common-law and non-accompanying. The only way to know if her PCC and medical are needed is by checking your placeholders if any require those documents, there won't be any harm in her getting those now since she will be applying in January.

 

[Anon2018]

Alright, I guess I'm just overreacting because I don't want to cause any issues due to ignorance. Thanks for your response!