Roommate to common law

[armoured]

Not declaring a spouse/common-law partner is considered misrepresentation. It doesn't matter if he/she would give you any benefit. There is a lot of information and jurisprudence about it.

Benefit in this context is materiality: if it does not benefit the applicant, it is not a material misrepresentation.

If you are not sure about it seek a piece of qualified legal advice. While I respect @armoured for being active and trying to help as much as he/she can, in this particular matter he/she is mistaken to the extent that it is not misrep if someone is qualified on their own and not declared a spouse.

As you'll see below, qualified legal advice parallels what I wrote (terminology aside) quite precisely. If there's no benefit to the applicant, it is not material.

he did call an immigration lawyer today and the lawyer told him that this is not material. what it means is basically even visa officer thinks we were in common law during Pr application that’s not affect my case since there is no benefit for claiming single. The lawyer said if the common law partner is not Pr or Canadian citizen then this factor will become material.

sorry I am not quite sure about material too technical

No worries. In this sense "material" just means 'something that matters.' I phrased it in terms of benefit/advantage instead of materiality as it does get a bit technical. My example of height is a more obvious case of (non)materiality: since it literally does not matter at all, it's not a point "that matters" (material). Whether or not you were common law with a citizen is not material, since it would not have affected the decision - but as quite rightly noted, if the room-mate (potential common law spouse) was not already a PR or citizen, that could have been material.

 

[MYYC]

What the lawyer means by material is what Armoured explained to you earlier in the thread about obtaining an advantage with IRCC by misrepresenting. Which is why the lawyer says basically that it doesn't make a difference (no advantage) in your situation since your partner is already a citizen.

thanks. I have not applied citizenship yet . so not sure if they will request anything from partner

 

[MYYC]

Benefit in this context is materiality: if it does not benefit the applicant, it is not a material misrepresentation.



As you'll see below, qualified legal advice parallels what I wrote (terminology aside) quite precisely. If there's no benefit to the applicant, it is not material.






No worries. In this sense "material" just means 'something that matters.' I phrased it in terms of benefit/advantage instead of materiality as it does get a bit technical. My example of height is a more obvious case of (non)materiality: since it literally does not matter at all, it's not a point "that matters" (material). Whether or not you were common law with a citizen is not material, since it would not have affected the decision - but as quite rightly noted, if the room-mate (potential common law spouse) was not already a PR or citizen, that could have been material.

Thanks a lot for the clarification. Do you know if i apply citizen ship and change my status, will they ask the other half to fill all those forms? I know if you sponsor someone, then they need to provide lots of docs such as the residence history in the last 10 years.

Thanks again

 

[armoured]

Thanks a lot for the clarification. Do you know if i apply citizen ship and change my status, will they ask the other half to fill all those forms? I know if you sponsor someone, then they need to provide lots of docs such as the residence history in the last 10 years.

Easiest thing would be to download the forms and see what information is required. I don't think they require much detailed info from spouses - and for the person applying for citizenship, i think they only ask for address going back five years or so.

But again - best to just check. I suspect your lawyer will say this is a non-issue in your case.

 

[MYYC]

Easiest thing would be to download the forms and see what information is required. I don't think they require much detailed info from spouses - and for the person applying for citizenship, i think they only ask for address going back five years or so.

But again - best to just check. I suspect your lawyer will say this is a non-issue in your case.

thanks. i did more research about the law

• 40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
  • (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
  • (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
  • (c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow their claim for refugee protection or application for protection; or
  • (d) on ceasing to be a citizen under
    • (i) paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 8 of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before that coming into force,
    • (ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act, or
    • (iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act.

40 (1) (a) applies most of the misrepresentation situations. The key infowould be material facts. relevant matter that
induces or could induce error in the administration


Thanks again

 

[DimT44]

thanks. i did more research about the law

• 40(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
  • (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
  • (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
  • (c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow their claim for refugee protection or application for protection; or
  • (d) on ceasing to be a citizen under
    • (i) paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 8 of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before that coming into force,
    • (ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act, or
    • (iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act.

40 (1) (a) applies most of the misrepresentation situations. The key infowould be material facts. relevant matter that
induces or could induce error in the administration


Thanks again

You are overthinking this. How is any of this relevant to you? In your original post you said you were not in a common law relationship when you sent your PR application or before becoming PR. That’s all what should matter, you did not have any misrepresentation.

If at any point IRCC questions this fact, which again I highly doubt will happen, you can then work with a lawyer to set up a case and respond.

Finally, what you should be checking are the forms of the citizenship application. Which I’m almost certain that they don’t require any info about your spouse. Besides stating what your marital status is. You can double check here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/application-canadian-citizenship-adults.html

 

[armoured]

thanks. i did more research about the law

• 40(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
  • (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
  • (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation

40 (1) (a) applies most of the misrepresentation situations. The key info would be material facts. relevant matter that
induces or could induce error in the administration

This is precisely my point - if you had been common law with a citizen, it wouldn't have 'induced an error' (beneficial to you - they mostly don't care about things that would harm your file, because that's your problem.)

Also note the (b) - which is what they apply to make undeclared spouses ineligible (i.e. they don't typically apply separate sanctions to the PR who didn't declare a spouse, especially retroactively).

And then, even if it were to come up, you'd have the factual argument that you weren't in a relationship then. But the factual question is moot because no material fact misrepresented.

But again most importantly: stop researching this aspect and actually download the forms and look at them. I think you'll see there is precious little info required about your spouse and his address history there anyway.

So on so many levels, this is almost certainly a non-issue in your case. If you want more certainty, hire a lawyer.

 

[armoured]

But again most importantly: stop researching this aspect and actually download the forms and look at them. I think you'll see there is precious little info required about your spouse and his address history there anyway.

Just to close the loop on this: the citizenship application asks for the marital status of the applicant, but not even the identity of the spouse (married common law etc).

Don't think there's much to worry about here.

 

[MYYC]

Just to close the loop on this: the citizenship application asks for the marital status of the applicant, but not even the identity of the spouse (married common law etc).

Don't think there's much to worry about here.

thanks a lot!