Photos to prove the relationship - are kissing photos acceptable?

[djnutz26]

In theory, yes, in practice, this can actually be quite difficult. Whenever it comes up here, I do suggest / recommend - if you can, get married.

If my partner's visitor visa to Canada was approved, we were planning to get married in Canada, and file an inland spousal sponsorship. But it is not possible now that he was refused twice. Also, I cannot go back to my home country to marry him, as it is not legal there.

In the past, we have never stayed common-law as well. We both stayed separately with our individual families (parents, siblings etc.) before I migrated to Canada on PR last year. In the south asian context, it was unsafe and not acceptable by our respective families and society for a gay couple to stay common-law. If we did that, we would have faced so much hate from everyone, and our families would have ditched us - this is something both of us did not want to go through. But we still had a romantic relationship ongoing, and it is still ongoing for 3.5 years.

Meanwhile, Canada refused him entry on a visitor visa twice, so we cannot marry in Canada.

My question is, would you still advise me to try and apply to a completely different country (like UK or Taiwan), and try to conduct a marriage there before we submit a sponsorship application?

As it stands, I feel like a forced/rushed marriage in a completely stranger country is not needed at this time, as I already have a valid case for conjugal partner sponsorship. I would appreciate your opinion on this as I am confused.

 

[djnutz26]

One option is to apply for a refugee status based on discrimination against LGBTQ people. It depends on which part of South Asia your partner comes from for that to apply to you as it is legal in some parts like India, etc. I am aware of a couple who did that a few years ago, who were from India (but this was when homosexuality was illegal there).

As far as I am aware, to claim refugee status first you need to arrive on Canadian soil on a visitor visa. Once arrived in Canada, you could claim asylum at the airport itself, or go inside the country and start the process inside the country. However, to do either of this first you need to come to Canada, and in our case my partner was refused entry on a visitor visa twice, so there is no way to do this.

I am not aware of how you could claim asylum while staying in your home country, without first coming to Canada. Please enlighten me if you know any way to do this.

On a separate note, because I am financially well-off in Canada at the moment, I do have the ability and capacity to sponsor him. Through my sponsorship, he could have a valid status in Canada without the hassle of a refugee claim. If we go down the refugee route, that means he would have restrictions in visiting his family members in the home country in the future. This is something both of us do not want.

 

[Sonikell]

Perhaps this will help.

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

if you feel you fulfil the above criteria then by all means go ahead. If you don’t feel like that then perhaps read the guidelines and accumulate evidence to support your case. Kissing or intimacy is fine but as it states on the webpage it isn’t enough. There has to be evidence to show financial or some other means- living together, letters of support from some family or friends.

i completely empathize with you as we are also in a Same sex relationship so if you are from a conservative society it’s kind of hard to gather proof that way. Other options could be marriage in a third country. Speaking to an immigration professional might be the best bet here.

 

[armoured]

If my partner's visitor visa to Canada was approved, we were planning to get married in Canada, and file an inland spousal sponsorship. But it is not possible now that he was refused twice. Also, I cannot go back to my home country to marry him, as it is not legal there.

In the past, we have never stayed common-law as well. We both stayed separately with our individual families (parents, siblings etc.) before I migrated to Canada on PR last year. In the south asian context, it was unsafe and not acceptable by our respective families and society for a gay couple to stay common-law. If we did that, we would have faced so much hate from everyone, and our families would have ditched us - this is something both of us did not want to go through. But we still had a romantic relationship ongoing, and it is still ongoing for 3.5 years.

Meanwhile, Canada refused him entry on a visitor visa twice, so we cannot marry in Canada.

This is one of the classic scenarios for which the conjugal sponsorship process was created, basically.

My question is, would you still advise me to try and apply to a completely different country (like UK or Taiwan), and try to conduct a marriage there before we submit a sponsorship application?

As it stands, I feel like a forced/rushed marriage in a completely stranger country is not needed at this time, as I already have a valid case for conjugal partner sponsorship. I would appreciate your opinion on this as I am confused.

As I noted, my usual 'suggestion' is - where possible - to get married, because it responds to at least the legal question. Which can be particularly important for some cases, like where the 'barriers' question is not so clearcut.

BUT: 'possible' I mean here in the sense of practical or feasible, and I don't have an answer for that, and I don't intend for the 'usual' suggestion to be some universal rule (particularly for those who simply cannot do it). You have to decide (with your partner). To me, the fact (I assume) that neither of you currently have visas (or similar) to the jurisdictions where you could get married is strong demonstration that it's not possible (at least at present).

So I don't see any strong reason not to apply for the conjugal process now. If you both had UK/EU visas and could travel there next month, I'd probably lean towards 'get married and then apply.' If your partner doesn't have any such visa and no clear prospect of getting one, the conclusion seems clear. Note, conjugal sponsorship does seem to take somewhat longer, if only because there is [arguably] more potential for fraud - but nonetheless some clear cases get handled reasonably quickly.

[Worth noting that if it should come to pass that you can get married somewhere, i.e. all of a sudden you both had visas, you could do that later. I'm not aware of any cases where a conjugal couple got married and then were refused for the conjugal sponsorship - after sharing that info with IRCC - even though they would technically no longer meet the requirements of the conjugal sponsorship. Anyway, cross that bridge when it comes to it.]

 

[djnutz26]

This is one of the classic scenarios for which the conjugal sponsorship process was created, basically.



As I noted, my usual 'suggestion' is - where possible - to get married, because it responds to at least the legal question. Which can be particularly important for some cases, like where the 'barriers' question is not so clearcut.

BUT: 'possible' I mean here in the sense of practical or feasible, and I don't have an answer for that, and I don't intend for the 'usual' suggestion to be some universal rule (particularly for those who simply cannot do it). You have to decide (with your partner). To me, the fact (I assume) that neither of you currently have visas (or similar) to the jurisdictions where you could get married is strong demonstration that it's not possible (at least at present).

So I don't see any strong reason not to apply for the conjugal process now. If you both had UK/EU visas and could travel there next month, I'd probably lean towards 'get married and then apply.' If your partner doesn't have any such visa and no clear prospect of getting one, the conclusion seems clear. Note, conjugal sponsorship does seem to take somewhat longer, if only because there is [arguably] more potential for fraud - but nonetheless some clear cases get handled reasonably quickly.

[Worth noting that if it should come to pass that you can get married somewhere, i.e. all of a sudden you both had visas, you could do that later. I'm not aware of any cases where a conjugal couple got married and then were refused for the conjugal sponsorship - after sharing that info with IRCC - even though they would technically no longer meet the requirements of the conjugal sponsorship. Anyway, cross that bridge when it comes to it.]

I highly appreciate your insights.

Your assumption is correct. None of us currently have visas to the UK/EU or any other country that would allow same sex marriage.

Also to provide some more context to my partner, he is unemployed in the home country. He is a full time undergraduate student going to university, and he is only planning to commence his internship next year. He is unable to commence employment at the moment, as he has full time lectures. This was one of the strong reasons for a Canada visitor visa refusal. A refusal reason states "your current employment situation does not show that you are financially established in your country of residence".

So even if we apply for a UK/EU visa I am very much certain this same reason would make them refuse as well. Further, since he already has 2 visitor visa rejections from Canada, that would be factored in as well in their decision.

Although I am financially established in Canada, it is not good enough for Canada to grant him a visitor visa. They need to see him to be established in the home country, to make sure he will go back at the end of the visit.

So as you rightfully said, there is no clear prospect of getting a UK/EU visa at the moment.

When we applied for a visitor visa to Canada, we mentioned the purpose of visit as tourism. We didn't mention we want to be married when he is here. This is because a lawyer advised if we mention the purpose of visit as marriage, they might refuse the visitor visa thinking he would not go back. So we prepared an itinerary for his visit, and I mentioned on my letter of invitation that I will ensure he doesn't overstay his visa. But this was still not good enough, and he was refused.

I have a question at this point, because you have been stressing so much on marriage. Would you now advise me to go ahead and apply a visitor visa for a 3rd time explicitly stating we want to be married, and file an inland spousal sponsorship? If we honestly say that is our plan, do you think IRCC would approve a visitor visa? As per the lawyer we spoke with that would still not be good enough, as my partner needs to be established in his home country, and show he will return at the end of the visit. If we state that he has plans to immigrate, his visitor visa would be outright rejected from what I heard. I like to hear your opinion on this.

Also, in our conjugal sponsorship application do you think we should talk about how Canada refused him entry on a visitor visa, which made it impossible to carry out our unmentioned plan of marriage, and file an inland sponsorship? I feel like there is a conflict here because the original purpose of the visitor visa was tourism.

Do you think we should also talk about how none of the UK/EU countries also would not let him in due to his employment situation?

 

[armoured]

I have a question at this point, because you have been stressing so much on marriage.

Let's be clear, I was 'stressing' on marriage in reaction to the claim / comments that 'marriage is my choice and govt can't do anything about it.' (Which is true, except that govt can deny a Pr application on basis applicants not spouses [whether by marriage or common law.]) Marriage is, amongst other things, a form of legal relationship that is recognized and accorded by the state.

As I pointed out, this relates to your specific case in a different way: the Canadian govt recognizes that normal forms of marriage that are recognized in Canada are not recognized or accorded in other jurisdictions, and that creates an untenable situation for some Canadians - you in this case (side note, PRs are 'Canadian' in this context.)

Would you now advise me to go ahead and apply a visitor visa for a 3rd time explicitly stating we want to be married, and file an inland spousal sponsorship? If we honestly say that is our plan, do you think IRCC would approve a visitor visa? As per the lawyer we spoke with that would still not be good enough, as my partner needs to be established in his home country, and show he will return at the end of the visit. If we state that he has plans to immigrate, his visitor visa would be outright rejected from what I heard. I like to hear your opinion on this.

I am not a professional but I see zero reason whatsoever to doubt what your lawyer has told you.

Also, in our conjugal sponsorship application do you think we should talk about how Canada refused him entry on a visitor visa, which made it impossible to carry out our unmentioned plan of marriage, and file an inland sponsorship? I feel like there is a conflict here because the original purpose of the visitor visa was tourism.

Ask your lawyer. My opinion is that there is no need to mention your unmentioned plans for previous visits. Stating that he has been refused a visitor visa (twice) to Canada is sufficient. If it needs explanation (and repeat: I think it does not), it only needs explanation that he could not visit Canada for you to, for example, get married.

And stop overthinking: your 'unmentioned plans' were not a misrepresentation. First, considering that is not the same as firm plans to do so, and second, it is not per se inconsistent with a visitor visa (the government calls this dual intent), and therefore not a misrepresentation retrospectively. (Even if it were it would require some serious evidence, like you'd rented a hall and invited 10,000 guests).)

[Warning I've been a bit legalistic in my wording, but repeat - not a lawyer. If you need proper legal confirmation of this - lawyer, not me.]

Do you think we should also talk about how none of the UK/EU countries also would not let him in due to his employment situation?

Short form: no. Long form: do not answer questions that have not been asked.

 

[djnutz26]

Let's be clear, I was 'stressing' on marriage in reaction to the claim / comments that 'marriage is my choice and govt can't do anything about it.' (Which is true, except that govt can deny a Pr application on basis applicants not spouses [whether by marriage or common law.]) Marriage is, amongst other things, a form of legal relationship that is recognized and accorded by the state.

As I pointed out, this relates to your specific case in a different way: the Canadian govt recognizes that normal forms of marriage that are recognized in Canada are not recognized or accorded in other jurisdictions, and that creates an untenable situation for some Canadians - you in this case (side note, PRs are 'Canadian' in this context.)



I am not a professional but I see zero reason whatsoever to doubt what your lawyer has told you.



Ask your lawyer. My opinion is that there is no need to mention your unmentioned plans for previous visits. Stating that he has been refused a visitor visa (twice) to Canada is sufficient. If it needs explanation (and repeat: I think it does not), it only needs explanation that he could not visit Canada for you to, for example, get married.

And stop overthinking: your 'unmentioned plans' were not a misrepresentation. First, considering that is not the same as firm plans to do so, and second, it is not per se inconsistent with a visitor visa (the government calls this dual intent), and therefore not a misrepresentation retrospectively. (Even if it were it would require some serious evidence, like you'd rented a hall and invited 10,000 guests).)

[Warning I've been a bit legalistic in my wording, but repeat - not a lawyer. If you need proper legal confirmation of this - lawyer, not me.]



Short form: no. Long form: do not answer questions that have not been asked.

Got it, many thanks to you.

I just wanted to double check on the marriage part because it came up a lot in our conversation. I don't think we need to bring that up in our conjugal sponsorship application as it is irrelevant.

I am thinking of mentioning we applied for a visitor visa twice as we wanted to see each other, and be together in a free country as Canada, rather than me going back to my home country, where we won't have the same level of freedom. This is an immigration barrier, which I think is good enough.

Thank you very much for your insights. Highly appreciated.

 

[armoured]

Got it, many thanks to you.

I just wanted to double check on the marriage part because it came up a lot in our conversation. I don't think we need to bring that up in our conjugal sponsorship application as it is irrelevant.

I am thinking of mentioning we applied for a visitor visa twice as we wanted to see each other, and be together in a free country as Canada, rather than me going back to my home country, where we won't have the same level of freedom. This is an immigration barrier, which I think is good enough.

Thank you very much for your insights. Highly appreciated.

I don't think you need to explain yourselves, perfectly normal to want to see one another. But work through the application and see what's needed.