canadianwoman said:
Saying your husband made a genuine mistake won't help. Showing you both have good jobs and a good education won't help.
I think you should go to the interview and be prepared to argue that you were not common-law. Say you were just trying out living together to see if it would work, that you hid it from your parents, that you fought a lot, that you broke up several times, that your now-husband left the apartment to live elsewhere for several weeks, that you did not intend this to be common-law as evidenced by the fact you did not have a joint account and paid all your expenses separately. Bring any proof of this you have.
When talking to the visa officer, he or she is not going to believe you, and will argue with you. Try to remain calm, do not give in, do not change your story, be consistent.
Probably the visa officer will find that you were common-law, and so cannot be sponsored now. However, I think you might as well go to the interview and try.
I also think you should start looking into how you could immigrate to Canada on your own.
This is about the best advice, and what I would do in that situation.
You never know, there is a chance, if you can come up with some kind of proof of separation. DON'T try the ignorance route. That never works.
One big question. Did your husband use the same address as you when he applied for
his PR originally?
I've looked at CANLII for a few similar cases. These are FEDERAL cases though, not just an interview with an officer. Their requirements are sometimes different.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2016/2016canlii83658/2016canlii83658.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAkcHJvY2VkdXJhbCAvcyBmYWlybmVzcyAvcyBjb21tb24tbGF3AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1
- Appeal allowed because both parties told the same story. Essentially a mistake on the application. The sponsor's original PR application had a different address from the person he was sponsoring.
- Never shared a home, made separate plans for the future, did not make purchases together, did not support each other financially. However, the time period in question is much longer than yours.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2016/2016canlii64922/2016canlii64922.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAiImRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgY29tbW9uLWxhdyBwYXJ0bmVyIgAAAAAB&resultIndex=6
-Spent more time apart than togethery had separate rooms and lives while in the same complex, and never held themselves out as anything other than boyfriend and girlfriend.
The Supreme Court has adopted a list of factors to examine when assessing a conjugal relationship.[7] While the appellant and applicant resided in a shared apartment complex, they maintained separate rooms, and the appellant paid rent. They were sexual partners with no long term commitment. Each was busy with their work, and the appellant particularly focused on coming to Canada in order to eventually assist his family financially. The oral testimony in this regard is supported by the evidence before the panel.
- Also a child involved as a reason why they decided to get married yet weren't "common-law" before despite living together.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2014/2014canlii98542/2014canlii98542.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAiImRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgY29tbW9uLWxhdyBwYXJ0bmVyIgAAAAAB&resultIndex=15
- Common-law relationship frowned upon in their culture, mistake on the form as they didn't actually live together, just stayed together a lot, didn't have intimate relations before their marriage. No joint assets, property, bills or accounts.
Unfortunately there are far more dismissed appeals in this situation than there are allowed appeals. I would try to make the point that you knew it would look like this, but that you didn't want to lie about the living situation and that you weren't truly common-law at the time of his PR landing.
Bring as much proof as you can and do more research. Good luck to you.
