Possible Denial Paragraph 117(9)(d)

[Ponga]

This is a bit of an oxymoron in that...living together as a couple for 12 months defines common-law, whether you have the proof or not, yet...

Those of use applying for common-law sponsorship have to prove that our CL relationship is...CL.

Seems contradictory to me.

 

[RobertoMags]

Exactly my point Ponga. If someone applies for CL then they have to prove right? Which is the very reason that we didn't declare it in the first application we CANNOT prove it. There is NO proof.

 

[Sweden]

I know.. and it is slightly contradictory. But if you read on this forum, you will see quite a lot of cases similar to this one, when the person, because they could not prove that they were CL, did not include their partner in the original application. But - later on, they got denied because of being CL. I'm not saying that CIC is always very logical - I'm saying that based on cases seen on this forum, that's usually the way it goes with CIC.

 

[RobertoMags]

So Sweden are you saying that I do not have a fighting chance on this? We did not mistakenly not declare me on their application so it's not ignoring the law. We did it on purpose because we don't have anything to prove that we are on a CL relationship.

 

[Ponga]

What about this:

If the OP never really stated, or admitted otherwise to CIC that they were in a loving relationship...who's to say that one of them was living at the same physical address, but perhaps in a basement suite, converted room over the garage, etc.?

Would that be an option?

I totally agree that the OP should not lie, so if the relationship had already been disclosed (when they were living together), disregard this question!

 

[Sweden]

To try and explain it a little better: on the first application, you should have been declared as CL and not accompanying. It wouldn't have given you a visa or anything, but it would have left the door open for sponsorship later on. At that point, declaring that your wife had a CL partner would not have required you to prove much - but you would have been included in the application.
Now - the spousal sponsorship is different. You HAVE to prove that you're CL, as it's the very criteria that define whether you're eligible or not. So yes - you will have to prove CL with lots of different documents etc.

Now - put yourself in CIC's shoes for a bit, and look at the whole picture: your now-wife emigrated a few years ago ( I suppose), getting her PR because she was a dependent to her parents. IF she had declared that she was in a CL relationship, she would not have been able to emigrate that way.
Later on, she decides to sponsor you. CIC will think that she tried to cheat the system (I'm not saying that was her intention, but from CIC's point of view, that's what it looks like) - not declaring you first, so she could emigrate, and then later on trying to sponsor you.

So : you can try and explain your point of view to CIC ( and of course, for your own sake, I hope that they hear your point of view), but I really doubt that you will be successful, even if it might have been an "honest mistake/misunderstanding" at first. CIC won't care. Your wife broke the law, you are excluded from the Family Member Class, and you can't be sponsored most likely. I hope that you can find a way to emigrate on your own to be with your family.

Sweden

 

[Ponga]

So Sweden are you saying that I do not have a fighting chance on this? We did not mistakenly not declare me on their application so it's not ignoring the law. We did it on purpose because we don't have anything to prove that we are on a CL relationship.

If anyone could use legal advice, and possible representation, it's you. Don't wait a minute longer. Find someone to talk to ASAP (since many offer free consultations).

 

[Sweden]

What about this:

If the OP never really stated, or admitted otherwise to CIC that they were in a loving relationship...who's to say that one of them was living at the same physical address, but perhaps in a basement suite, converted room over the garage, etc.?

Would that be an option?
I totally agree that the OP should not lie, so if the relationship had already been disclosed (when they were living together), disregard this question!

From cases on this forum: some people have tried to go that way, and they had to go to great lengths (getting letters from friends, owner, etc. ) to prove that they WERE not in a relationship. the only way it could work in other cases is if the person could prove that they were in a romantic relationship with somebody else, while leaving with another person. A very difficult thing to prove, and not applicable in this case. PLus - in this case, they lived together, in the parents' home, and then got married - CIC will have a hard time believing that they were not in a conjugal relationship at that point.

 

[jomz]

We did it on purpose because we don't have anything to prove that we are on a CL relationship.

I think CIC took the position because of your admission of being in the CL relationship with your sponsor. And as I mentioned before if your CL was a dependent applicant for PR under her parents app. than she could not have added you on because that would make her inadmissible under that PR app.

 

[Ponga]

Agreed Sweden, but it's tough to watch someone who, IMHO [which means nothing to CIC] truly was unaware of the damage that they were doing then...to be so catastrophic now.

Hopefully, things will all work out (sending positive energy to the OP)!

 

[jomz]

Agreed, but it's tough to watch someone who, IMHO [which means nothing to CIC] truly was unaware of the damage that they were doing then...to be so catastrophic now.

Hopefully, things will all work out (sending positive energy to the OP)!

Yes true. However the OP was deliberately not included on the spouses PR application (not for reason of no proof, but as he mentioned he was advised he cannot be (which I can only assume was only for reason of her being a dependent of her parents))

 

[Ponga]

So is the lesson here, to have the partner move out and basically sever the CL relationship (sort of) the day before a person being sponsored by their parents submits a PR application?

If so, at what point could the partner move back in and continue their life, while continuing to support their partners desire to gain PR?

 

[jomz]

Not quite. There are some allowances for a dependent child to be married or in CL and still be viewed as dependent. The OP is having problems now because his spouse claimed to be single at time of her application, and meanwhile she was in a CL relationship (undeclared to CIC). So the OP became excluded under the family class.

 

[Ponga]

Ah. That makes sense.
All the more reason for the OP to seek legal advice, so as to not jeopardize his wife's PR...even though she declared her marital status
on her application, due to what appears to have been some bad, or, at the very least, unclear advice.

The bottom line is that they're in this together and will hopefully lean on each other to get through this.

 

[Sweden]

So is the lesson here, to have the partner move out and basically sever the CL relationship (sort of) the day before a person being sponsored by their parents submits a PR application?

If so, at what point could the partner move back in and continue their life, while continuing to support their partners desire to gain PR?

I don't know if there is any lesson here. Mostly, the most reasonable thing to do is NOT to lie (whether intentionally to be able to gain PR etc., or not) on an immigration application, because it has consequences down the road.

And about moving out: if the partner moves out but are still in a conjugal relationship, the CL is not necessarily severed. You become CL after having lived together for 12 months, but you don't stop being CL the day you leave the house - in fact quite a few couples live together, establish CL, and then one moves out (for studies, immigration etc. ) but they still maintain a relationship and for all purposes and intents are considered a couple - they still qualify as CL partners.

So in the OP's case: they were CL, and even if the now-wife moved to Canada, they obviously maintained a relationship ( as they got married later on) , so they might be considered CL even when not living together anymore.