what happen if i divorce before i have pr in toronto

[mf4361]

IIRC, spousal sponsor still has the 2 year conditional PR with respect to the marriage and it's counted from day of landing

 

[Bcboundboy]

Yes, condition 51 isn't OP's issue. It probably wouldn't be applied, and if it was, it might not last long with the stated intention to abolish it altogether.

The problem with OP is that they want to fraudulently claim Canadian residency based off a relationship that has ended before they have been given residency to allow them to continue their relationship.

Hopefully the Canadian sponsor will decide they don't want to be financially liable for their ex for the next 3 years, and will withdraw the sponsorship before anything is approved.

 

[mf4361]

I don't think conditional PR would still apply to the OP as he stated they've been married for 10 years..but who knows..

OK I see the problem here

conditional PR still apply, OP needs to be in marriage for 2 years after becoming PR. But now OP is separated/divorced before becoming PR and not letting IRCC know the change of marital status, which leads to possible accusation of misrepresentation. However OP is still 'talking' about that and until any official paper is submitted to government, there should not be legal repercussions.

The burden of proof is on IRCC to prove OP get into marriage for the purpose of getting PR together, not the other way round. OP won't be getting PR anyway unless he stay in the marriage for 2 more years, but being accused of immigration fraud is a bit of stretch

 

[profiler]

OK I see the problem here

conditional PR still apply, OP needs to be in marriage for 2 years after becoming PR. But now OP is separated/divorced before becoming PR and not letting IRCC know the change of marital status, which leads to possible accusation of misrepresentation. However OP is still 'talking' about that and until any official paper is submitted to government, there should not be legal repercussions.

The burden of proof is on IRCC to prove OP get into marriage for the purpose of getting PR together, not the other way round. OP won't be getting PR anyway unless he stay in the marriage for 2 more years, but being accused of immigration fraud is a bit of stretch

Look, the condition will not apply. And it is the least of the OP's concern.

Condition 51 applies if the the couple were married for less than two years before becoming a PR. Again, OP's married for 10 years.

The OP has 10 yrs in the marriage and 2 kids. Either of those (> 2 yrs at the time of application; or the kids in common) would exclude them from Condition 51. There is a 100% chance there is no condition.

The biggest problem will be that the person does not meet the eligibility requirements under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada, or Family Classes. They would be excluded from the class, therefore they would be ineligible to apply for PR under that class. By continuing the application, they are committing misrepresentation. That's a big no-no.

 

[Bcboundboy]

The burden of proof is on IRCC to prove OP get into marriage for the purpose of getting PR together, not the other way round. OP won't be getting PR anyway unless he stay in the marriage for 2 more years, but being accused of immigration fraud is a bit of stretch

Wrong on both counts.

Condition 51 isn't relevant to OP. Structuring the timing of their already-planned divorce so that it happens after they've gained immigration status that they don't qualify for is a textbook case of immigration fraud.

 

[Rob_TO]

If you still live at the same address, divorce is still a minimum of one full year away. How much longer for your PR application, if you have an idea? Your best guess.

If the relationship has broken down and they are no longer considered in a genuine relationship, then it doesn't matter if they still lived at the same address, he would no longer be eligible to be sponsored under family class. At this point it would be a marriage of convenience just for immigration purposes.

 

[mf4361]

Wrong on both counts.

Condition 51 isn't relevant to OP. Structuring the timing of their already-planned divorce so that it happens after they've gained immigration status that they don't qualify for is a textbook case of immigration fraud.

Ok I get Condition 51 isn't relevant because OP has children. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-10-26a.asp

But there is a difference between the following 2 situation:

1) Relationship broken, files separation, does not report to IRCC
2) Relationship broken, still lives together and does not file separation documents until gaining PR status

1) is clear example of misrepresentation
2) is technically illegal, but difficult to prove by IRCC

 

[Bcboundboy]

Ok I get Condition 51 isn't relevant because OP has children. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-10-26a.asp

But there is a difference between the following 2 situation:

1) Relationship broken, files separation, does not report to IRCC
2) Relationship broken, still lives together and does not file separation documents until gaining PR status

1) is clear example of misrepresentation
2) is technically illegal, but difficult to prove by IRCC

Just because something is difficult to prove doesn't stop it from being serious immigration fraud. It stops it from being easy to detect. OP asked this forum for advice in how to commit a criminal act (timing their divorce so they could commit immigration fraud). Nobody here is in any doubt that they are committing that crime. Yes, IRCC may be deceived successfully (which is why I hope the sponsor withdraws, as they will be on the hook for years to come if they don't). That doesn't stop it from being a serious crime, and one they should be strongly advised against committing.

Spousal sponsorship is granted for the purpose of living with your spouse on an ongoing basus. It is NOT granted as some kind of reward for having found a legal partner for the necessary period of time.

 

[profiler]

Just because something is difficult to prove doesn't stop it from being serious immigration fraud. It stops it from being easy to detect. OP asked this forum for advice in how to commit a criminal act (timing their divorce so they could commit immigration fraud). Nobody here is in any doubt that they are committing that crime. Yes, IRCC may be deceived successfully (which is why I hope the sponsor withdraws, as they will be on the hook for years to come if they don't). That doesn't stop it from being a serious crime, and one they should be strongly advised against committing.

Spousal sponsorship is granted for the purpose of living with your spouse on an ongoing basus. It is NOT granted as some kind of reward for having found a legal partner for the necessary period of time.

Exactly the point. Imagine getting a bill one day for tens of thousands of dollars, because the PA went on social assistance for a year or two without telling the Sponsor. Surprise!

 

[mf4361]

I'm not saying OP should do what he planned to do, because he shouldn't. I'm saying that the law has its own limitation what it can do to find and punish the guilty.

The law does not punish people who had arguments with their spouses. The law does not punish people who had ideation of divorce. It only punishes people committed to a divorce without carrying its consequences. It's the action that made the difference

 

[Rob_TO]

The law does not punish people who had arguments with their spouses. The law does not punish people who had ideation of divorce. It only punishes people committed to a divorce without carrying its consequences. It's the action that made the difference

If a couple went to an interview and told the visa officer they were even just thinking about divorce, the application would be rejected immediately afterwards.

 

[Bcboundboy]

I'm not saying OP should do what he planned to do, because he shouldn't. I'm saying that the law has its own limitation what it can do to find and punish the guilty.

The law does not punish people who had arguments with their spouses. The law does not punish people who had ideation of divorce. It only punishes people committed to a divorce without carrying its consequences. It's the action that made the difference

OP didn't say they had an argument with their spouse. They asked if they should get divorced before their got PR or after.

There is no doubt that they do not qualify as a spousal application, and are fraudulently, and illegally carrying on with one.

This is not dissimilar to the issue in your signature. Whilst a PNP-sponsored person can move to another province, legally, and constitutionally, it is fraud to gain a PNP nomination from a province by pretending to have a commitment to it whilst never actually planning on living there.