Please Advise -urgent case-spousal sponsorship

[Emmaswan]

It's a legal website.

At this point, without hard evidence (mail/ID/documents/etc.) that he resided somewhere else for at least 3-4 weeks during that time, you are out of options. IRCC will not believe any claim that you stayed in separate rooms or give any credence to a letter from a friend claiming your partner lived somewhere else for a time.


It really wouldn't be worth anything.
[/quote]

Thanks!

 

[methyl]

Common law status has to do with more than just sharing same address.
Roommates can share same address but not be common-law.


The criteria for being common law is in essence being in a marriage-like union.
Is IRCC aware of any of the following?
shared bank accounts,
shared credit cards,
shared ownership of residential property,
shared residential leases,
shared rental receipts,
bills for shared utilities accounts, such as electricity, gas or telephone,
shared management of household expenses,
evidence of shared purchases (especially of household items),
mail addressed to either or both of you at the same address

Misrepresentation is a pretty strong accusation and while IRCC officers could claim that there would be no proof unless you somehow showed this in your application.

If you moved in to try out the relationship but were not committed to you, that is not a common-law union - according to IRCC itself. You need to read up on IRCC definitions, operational manuals, Canadian case law on common-law unions to have very precise responses to questions that may arise about this during the interview.

Common-law is not as black and white as marriage, as IRCC states itself.

 

[Rob_TO]

Common law status has to do with more than just sharing same address.
Roommates can share same address but not be common-law.


The criteria for being common law is in essence being in a marriage-like union.
Is IRCC aware of any of the following?
shared bank accounts,
shared credit cards,
shared ownership of residential property,
shared residential leases,
shared rental receipts,
bills for shared utilities accounts, such as electricity, gas or telephone,
shared management of household expenses,
evidence of shared purchases (especially of household items),
mail addressed to either or both of you at the same address

Misrepresentation is a pretty strong accusation and while IRCC officers could claim that there would be no proof unless you somehow showed this in your application.

If you moved in to try out the relationship but were not committed to you, that is not a common-law union - according to IRCC itself. You need to read up on IRCC definitions, operational manuals, Canadian case law on common-law unions to have very precise responses to questions that may arise about this during the interview.

Common-law is not as black and white as marriage, as IRCC states itself.

All great in theory, not so much in reality.

When it comes to non-declaration of family members, a couple who is dating (casually or seriously, it doesn't matter) and is living together in the same room of a house for 12 months, is common-law. This is pretty straightforward. There are ample cases on record in these non-declaration cases, and CIC is very quick to put the common-law label on anyone who fulfills 2 basic criteria: 1) dating and 2) lived together 12 months. They don't care what joint accounts or other proofs there are, simply living together trumps everything.

Of course if trying to prove common-law the other way when attempting to sponsor a common-law partner, you are required to jump through hoops to prove common-law with lots of the proofs you mentioned.

 

[canadianwoman]

Yes, I agree. This is the problem with these scenarios. If you are trying to show that you were not common-law, CIC will think you are common-law based on living together for 12 months. If you are trying to show you are common-law, just showing you lived together for 12 months will not be enough.

 

[Emmaswan]

Common law status has to do with more than just sharing same address.
Roommates can share same address but not be common-law.


The criteria for being common law is in essence being in a marriage-like union.
Is IRCC aware of any of the following?
shared bank accounts,
shared credit cards,
shared ownership of residential property,
shared residential leases,
shared rental receipts,
bills for shared utilities accounts, such as electricity, gas or telephone,
shared management of household expenses,
evidence of shared purchases (especially of household items),
mail addressed to either or both of you at the same address

Misrepresentation is a pretty strong accusation and while IRCC officers could claim that there would be no proof unless you somehow showed this in your application.

If you moved in to try out the relationship but were not committed to you, that is not a common-law union - according to IRCC itself. You need to read up on IRCC definitions, operational manuals, Canadian case law on common-law unions to have very precise responses to questions that may arise about this during the interview.

Common-law is not as black and white as marriage, as IRCC states itself.

let say , if me and my husband admit ( in the application i have already stated when he moved in with me) we cohabited in the interview. but firstly, we just wanna see if this works not really committed to each other ( my parent is very conservative, they didn't know we live together until half year after my husband landed, and we have conflicts in between ( no proof)). secondly, when my husband landed he received an email from CIC stated to declare if any status changes, the email stated : . have you married or divorced? . have you give birth or adopted a child ?. Do you intend to get married or divorced prior to becoming a permanent resident?. Have you change your contact information and address? My husband read the email and emailed them back with address changes. However ,there is nothing regarding commom Law on the email!! otherwise my husband would declared me as commom law. would it be possible for the visa officer to have discretion of the cohabitation situation and give me a way out?

 

[Emmaswan]

Yes, I agree. This is the problem with these scenarios. If you are trying to show that you were not common-law, CIC will think you are common-law based on living together for 12 months. If you are trying to show you are common-law, just showing you lived together for 12 months will not be enough.

If we decide not to go for the interview and withdraw ,we have the chance to explain in on the paper without facing officer's interrogation which may result in more proof on the case stating we are commom law. however if we don't go for the interview, the case may get scrutiny and get reject. At this point , is it very hard for me and my husband to make a decision and the interview is next week on Friday in Hongkong.

 

[MilesAway]

let say , if me and my husband admit ( in the application i have already stated when he moved in with me) we cohabited in the interview. but firstly, we just wanna see if this works not really committed to each other ( my parent is very conservative, they didn't know we live together until half year after my husband landed, and we have conflicts in between ( no proof)). secondly, when my husband landed he received an email from CIC stated to declare if any status changes, the email stated : . have you married or divorced? . have you give birth or adopted a child ?. Do you intend to get married or divorced prior to becoming a permanent resident?. Have you change your contact information and address? My husband read the email and emailed them back with address changes. However ,there is nothing regarding commom Law on the email!! otherwise my husband would declared me as commom law. would it be possible for the visa officer to have discretion of the cohabitation situation and give me a way out?

Becoming common-law is a change in marital status. That's why they call it a common-law spouse.

 

[carolbb23]

If we decide not to go for the interview and withdraw ,we have the chance to explain in on the paper without facing officer's interrogation which may result in more proof on the case stating we are commom law. however if we don't go for the interview, the case may get scrutiny and get reject. At this point , is it very hard for me and my husband to make a decision and the interview is next week on Friday in Hongkong.

i think you should go if you do not go cic might think your hiding something. and people like you make it hard for legitimate couples who are common law or married

 

[canuck_in_uk]

let say , if me and my husband admit ( in the application i have already stated when he moved in with me) we cohabited in the interview. but firstly, we just wanna see if this works not really committed to each other ( my parent is very conservative, they didn't know we live together until half year after my husband landed, and we have conflicts in between ( no proof)). secondly, when my husband landed he received an email from CIC stated to declare if any status changes, the email stated : . have you married or divorced? . have you give birth or adopted a child ?. Do you intend to get married or divorced prior to becoming a permanent resident?. Have you change your contact information and address? My husband read the email and emailed them back with address changes. However ,there is nothing regarding commom Law on the email!! otherwise my husband would declared me as commom law. would it be possible for the visa officer to have discretion of the cohabitation situation and give me a way out?

At this point, the burden is on you guys to prove you weren't common-law, which from what you've said, you aren't going to be able to do. The officer can't come to any other conclusion but that you were common-law when your spouse landed and you were not included. It is quite clear in the application that a common-law spouse must be included just like a married spouse, so your husband should have been aware of that and included you when you became common-law.

This particular immigration law is in place to protect Canada's healthcare and social services; IRCC virtually never allows exceptions to it.

 

[Rob_TO]

let say , if me and my husband admit ( in the application i have already stated when he moved in with me) we cohabited in the interview. but firstly, we just wanna see if this works not really committed to each other ( my parent is very conservative, they didn't know we live together until half year after my husband landed, and we have conflicts in between ( no proof)). secondly, when my husband landed he received an email from CIC stated to declare if any status changes, the email stated : . have you married or divorced? . have you give birth or adopted a child ?. Do you intend to get married or divorced prior to becoming a permanent resident?. Have you change your contact information and address? My husband read the email and emailed them back with address changes. However ,there is nothing regarding commom Law on the email!! otherwise my husband would declared me as commom law. would it be possible for the visa officer to have discretion of the cohabitation situation and give me a way out?

In general, 2 people that are dating but are not committed to each other, do not move in and live together. Deciding to move in with someone already shows a huge commitment and that the couple is more than just causal dating.

IMO this explanation will definitely not work. As I said previously, in your case you would need to show proofs that you actually separated during the cohabitation, so there was not actually 12 months of continuous cohabitation as a couple.

If we decide not to go for the interview and withdraw ,we have the chance to explain in on the paper without facing officer's interrogation which may result in more proof on the case stating we are commom law. however if we don't go for the interview, the case may get scrutiny and get reject. At this point , is it very hard for me and my husband to make a decision and the interview is next week on Friday in Hongkong.

You have already been scheduled for an interview. If you cancel this app and re-submit a new app, it's practically guaranteed you would go for an interview for that app anyways since the new visa officer would see all the case notes of the previous one. It may even be the exact same visa officer again. So either way you will need to end up explaining yourself in person at an interview.

 

[danawhitaker]

In general, 2 people that are dating but are not committed to each other, do not move in and live together. Deciding to move in with someone already shows a huge commitment and that the couple is more than just causal dating.

IMO this explanation will definitely not work. As I said previously, in your case you would need to show proofs that you actually separated during the cohabitation, so there was not actually 12 months of continuous cohabitation as a couple.

You have already been scheduled for an interview. If you cancel this app and re-submit a new app, it's practically guaranteed you would go for an interview for that app anyways since the new visa officer would see all the case notes of the previous one. It may even be the exact same visa officer again. So either way you will need to end up explaining yourself in person at an interview.

I've known many couples who weren't very committed to each other who lived together. It's not necessarily a huge commitment to some people. That may vary from culture to culture. I'm from the United States. I had many friends that lived with someone during college, for instance, and it was much less about commitment and more so that they could split the expenses with someone. Almost none of the people I knew who did that continued on to actually get married or stay together. There's a huge difference between actually getting married and moving in together, at least in my mind, especially when you're just renting and you aren't purchasing joint property together.

 

[scylla]

I've known many couples who weren't very committed to each other who lived together. It's not necessarily a huge commitment to some people. That may vary from culture to culture. I'm from the United States. I had many friends that lived with someone during college, for instance, and it was much less about commitment and more so that they could split the expenses with someone. Almost none of the people I knew who did that continued on to actually get married or stay together. There's a huge difference between actually getting married and moving in together, at least in my mind, especially when you're just renting and you aren't purchasing joint property together.

Unfortunately it doesn't matter one way or the other. All that matters is if they lived together for a year. If so, they are common law. The only way out of the problem they have now is to prove they didn't live together for a year before he immigrated. Since they stated in their application they lived together for a year, burden of proof is on them to provide evidence to show otherwise.

 

[danawhitaker]

Unfortunately it doesn't matter one way or the other. All that matters is if they lived together for a year. If so, they are common law. The only way out of the problem they have now is to prove they didn't live together for a year before he immigrated. Since they stated in their application they lived together for a year, burden of proof is on them to provide evidence to show otherwise.

I was mainly pointing out to the previous poster that it's not that uncommon for people to live together without serious commitment. I have a cousin who would have five common law wives at this point based on CIC's definition of common law because he'd pretty much move in with anyone he was dating at the time very quickly, and many of those relationships did last longer than a year but ultimately didn't work out.

Though their definition is interesting. The guide for the IMM 0008 form says one year living together in a "marital-type" relationship as the definition for common law. That's vague wording in itself. What does one define as a marital-type relationship? It's not specified verbatim in the guide for filling out that form. Just living together doesn't fit that bill in my mind. I can definitely see how it looks from CIC's perspective. But on the flip side, they have strict requirements that people have to meet for spousal sponsorship to prove that it's a common law relationship in the first place, and just living together doesn't seem to be good enough for that.

Either way, as you mention, it's a moot point, given the circumstances.

 

[Emmaswan]

In general, 2 people that are dating but are not committed to each other, do not move in and live together. Deciding to move in with someone already shows a huge commitment and that the couple is more than just causal dating.

IMO this explanation will definitely not work. As I said previously, in your case you would need to show proofs that you actually separated during the cohabitation, so there was not actually 12 months of continuous cohabitation as a couple.

You have already been scheduled for an interview. If you cancel this app and re-submit a new app, it's practically guaranteed you would go for an interview for that app anyways since the new visa officer would see all the case notes of the previous one. It may even be the exact same visa officer again. So either way you will need to end up explaining yourself in person at an interview.

what if i tell the visa officer it was true that we lived together ( 8 months in an rented apartment (we just wanted to try out if it worked for us ) 9months in my husband's self-owned Condo) before he landed. My husband genuinely make an honest mistake. we both are professional in the financial industry with a good job and education. If we confessed the above fact to the visa officer, will it help to get the discretionary /compassion from the visa offer to approve it ?

 

[Emmaswan]

I was mainly pointing out to the previous poster that it's not that uncommon for people to live together without serious commitment. I have a cousin who would have five common law wives at this point based on CIC's definition of common law because he'd pretty much move in with anyone he was dating at the time very quickly, and many of those relationships did last longer than a year but ultimately didn't work out.

Though their definition is interesting. The guide for the IMM 0008 form says one year living together in a "marital-type" relationship as the definition for common law. That's vague wording in itself. What does one define as a marital-type relationship? It's not specified verbatim in the guide for filling out that form. Just living together doesn't fit that bill in my mind. I can definitely see how it looks from CIC's perspective. But on the flip side, they have strict requirements that people have to meet for spousal sponsorship to prove that it's a common law relationship in the first place, and just living together doesn't seem to be good enough for that.

Either way, as you mention, it's a moot point, given the circumstances.

Except food. we separated all the expenses. no join account