What if my outland conjugal application is refused, whats next?

[canadianwoman]

This is the link to CanLII:
https://www.canlii.org/en/

There are many cases of common-law couples from the Philippines on this forum. They have managed to successfully sponsor, even though they could not get all the proof the CIC lists. The visa officers are generally aware of what types of proof are and are not possible in various countries, especially the Philippines, since so many applicants come from there.
On CanLII you can find cases where the visa officer thought the couple was genuine, but where the applicant was refused because they did not meet the requirements for common-law. There was a forum member who last December was refused for not meeting the common-law requirements by just a week.
Since divorce is not possible in the Philippines, actually this is one of the countries where conjugal applications are the most likely to succeed. I would hope, then, that yours will be successful as well.
If your application is rejected, I would not appeal. Appeals take a long time, and there is no guarantee you would win. If they reject the application, it would be better to either get married, or live together for one year, and then reapply.

 

[canadalover4987]

Having gone through a common law application and being approved, I can vouch for Rob_TO's point of view. We had considered trying conjugal initially (Indonesian spouse, Christian/Muslim mix, very conservative location in the country) due to what we felt were barriers to our relationship being considered common law. We relocated to a slightly less conservative location, but could not open joint accounts/leases/utilities etc. and only managed to stay together, providing proof through pictures. Work also required me to move from Indonesia to several other countries in the region where common law is not recognized (and in many cases frowned upon). She travelled with me on her visa free passport in the region, only taking breaks in our relationship to leave the country and re-enter a few days later, again with the proof being pictures and travel documents that coincided with us being in country together. We were successful as common law, despite whether the countries we were in recognized it or not. It's the Canadian Governments interpretation of common law that counts.

Same sex marriages are available in Thailand, for which neither of you require a visa, so there is no barrier to marriage, making conjugal difficult to prove.

Congratulations on your application.


Same sex marriage is not available in Thailand, my partner and I went there infact no asian countries allows it yet.

 

[Rob_TO]

Can you support this claim in the CIC manual? I dont remember reading it somewhere.

It's stated multiple times in the OP2 manual I posted above. Just a few excerpts, some of which I already posted:

-The conjugal partner category is mainly intended for partners where neither common-law partner status nor marriage is possible,

-the intention of the conjugal-partner category is to accommodate those few Canadians
with foreign partners who can neither marry nor live together, .... The key to determining
whether an individual is a conjugal partner is whether they are in a conjugal relationship with their
sponsor and whether there is a compelling barrier to continuous cohabitation.

-if they are not married, they must be common-law partners. There is NO provision for fiancé(e)s or “intended
common-law partners” in IRPA. If a Canadian and a foreign national can get married or can live
together and establish a common-law relationship, this is what they are expected to have done
before they submit sponsorship and immigration applications.

 

[Sous02]

How can that be "tehcnically possible" if those compelling evidences being ask by CIC are not possible. I need you to support your statement.

Are you a filipino or your partner a filipino? The arguement is what should i do if my conjugal application is denied. Im not asking if im qualified as conjugal or not.

You will have only two choices. Get married or live common law for 12 months. The reasons you have stated as obstacles are just that, obstacles. You can live however uncomfortably in the phillipines as a common law couple in the eyes of Canadian law. That is the important part to remember. It matters what CIC and Canada recognize as a common law marriage not what the phillipines recognizes. CIC understands that it is difficult for you and will take that into consideration when you show the evidence you provide after 12 months.
Whether I am phillipino or not is not relevant and if you only want to hear from phillipinos I believe there is a thread for manila and a phillipino facebook page.

 

[canadalover4987]

If the visa officer does not agree with the legal/immigration barrier to marriage/common-law, the app will stop processing right there regardless of if the relationship is genuine or not. This is similar to a common-law app, if the visa officer feels there is insufficient evidence to prove 12 months of cohabitation, they will reject the app regardless of if the relationship is genuine or not.

Well so far so good since i havent receive any bad news yet from CIC telling they stop processing my conjugal application. What im trying to understand is what part of CIC manual that would support this

 

[canadalover4987]

You will have only two choices. Get married or live common law for 12 months. The reasons you have stated as obstacles are just that, obstacles. You can live however uncomfortably in the phillipines as a common law couple in the eyes of Canadian law. That is the important part to remember. It matters what CIC and Canada recognize as a common law marriage not what the phillipines recognizes. CIC understands that it is difficult for you and will take that into consideration when you show the evidence you provide after 12 months.
Whether I am phillipino or not is not relevant and if you only want to hear from phillipinos I believe there is a thread for manila and a phillipino facebook page.

How can we prove that we have cohabitated the affairs? Is family testimonial enough for CIC? How to prove to CIC that common law is genuine if we cant document it? We could have live in separate house though and can still claims we are together. Again, my partner owns a house and cant name me in the land title. Are you suggesting to rent for a year so i cant satisfy VO? I dont think so. Lol

Dont mixed the issue with heterosexual couples as to same sex couples. Its totally different.

 

[canadalover4987]

This is the link to CanLII:
https://www.canlii.org/en/

There are many cases of common-law couples from the Philippines on this forum. They have managed to successfully sponsor, even though they could not get all the proof the CIC lists. The visa officers are generally aware of what types of proof are and are not possible in various countries, especially the Philippines, since so many applicants come from there.
On CanLII you can find cases where the visa officer thought the couple was genuine, but where the applicant was refused because they did not meet the requirements for common-law. There was a forum member who last December was refused for not meeting the common-law requirements by just a week.
Since divorce is not possible in the Philippines, actually this is one of the countries where conjugal applications are the most likely to succeed. I would hope, then, that yours will be successful as well.
If your application is rejected, I would not appeal. Appeals take a long time, and there is no guarantee you would win. If they reject the application, it would be better to either get married, or live together for one year, and then reapply.

Thanks for replying. And thank you for hoping that my application will be successful. There has to be a clear plan on what i should do if i got denied.

Is this common law you are talking about also in a same sex or heterosexual couples?

 

[canadalover4987]

This is interesting.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii79181/2009canlii79181.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAUQ29uanVnYWwgYXBwbGljYXRpb24AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1


What would constitute a "conjugal relationship" remains largely undefined by IRPA and the IRP Regulations. Some guidance as to the meaning of conjugal relationship is found in Supreme Court of Canada decisions dealing with the issue of whether legislative provisions excluding same or opposite sex common-law partners from benefits provided to married couples were discriminatory and offended against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In determining that these provisions are discriminatory, the Supreme Court of Canada in M. v. H[2] set out certain characteristics of a conjugal relationship as follows:

They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. However, it was recognized that these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal. While it is true that there may not be any consensus as to the societal perception of same-sex couples, there is agreement that same-sex couples share many other "conjugal" characteristics. In order to come within the definition, neither opposite-sex couples nor same-sex couples are required to fit precisely the traditional marital model to demonstrate that the relationship is "conjugal"...

Obviously the weight to be accorded the various elements or factors to be considered in determining whether an opposite-sex couple is in a conjugal relationship will vary widely and almost infinitely. The same must hold true of same-sex couples. Courts have wisely determined that the approach to determining whether a relationship is conjugal must be flexible. This must be so, for the relationships of all couples will vary widely.


The Court listed seven characteristics of a conjugal relationship. These are:

SHELTER: (a) Did the parties live under the same roof? (b) What were the sleeping arrangements? (c)Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

SEXUAL AND PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR: (a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not? (b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other? (c) What were their feelings toward each other? (d) Did they communicate on a personal level?(e)Did they eat their meals together?(f)What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness? (g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

SERVICES: What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to: (a) preparation of meals, (b) Washing and mending clothes, (c) Shopping, (d) Household maintenance, (e) Any other domestic services?

SOCIAL: (a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities? (b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them towards members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

SOCIETAL: What was the attitude and conduct of the community towards each of them and as a couple?

SUPPORT: (ECONOMIC): (a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution towards the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)? (b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property? (c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

CHILDREN: What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

 

[CDNPR2014]

Is this common law you are talking about also in a same sex or heterosexual couples?

Canada recognizes commonlaw the same for same sex or heterosexual couples. it has nothing to do with sexual preference. it has everything to do with proving cohabitation for 365+ consecutive days. There are many ways couples can do this.

If your spouse owns their home and you are living there, perhaps a written agreement between the 2 of you reflecting shared expenses/responsibility can be drawn up and signed. there is nothing that suggests these agreements must be notarized or recognized by the local government.

What's important to remember is even though there are barriers to getting these things in the country you currently are, Canada's laws are significantly different and commonlaw is proven by IRCC's threshold, not another government's. i believe the application can include items that support your relationships regardless of whether it's recognized where you are living.

 

[Rob_TO]

Well so far so good since i havent receive any bad news yet from CIC telling they stop processing my conjugal application. What im trying to understand is what part of CIC manual that would support this

I've provided multiple sections from the OP2 manual that very clearly state showing barrier to marriage/common-law is essential to be considered for connugal class.

Here is yet another proof, the conjugal class does not even exist for inland process:
The conjugal partner category applies only to the family class and only to a foreign national
sponsored by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident living in Canada. This category does not
apply to the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class as the exception would not be
required in Canada.

Remember the important point that the conjugal class exists as an EXCEPTION to the regular marriage and common-law classes. So you must first be found as impossible to qualify under marriage or common-law, before they will even consider the conjugal relationship.

This is why if both people are inside Canada (perhaps living in different cities) and don't want to get married, they may have been in a conjugal relationship for 20 years, yet CIC will not even accept a conjugal application since there would not be a real barrier to common-law. The relationship itself is truly irrelevant in this case.

In your case you have shown barriers such as denied TRVs, and showing that living together in Philippines could be very difficult. You have a decent enough chance to be approved, so really I wouldn't worry about possible denial or appealing, until you're actually given reason by the visa office that they are going to reject you. They will not send you an outright rejection, what they would do is first send you a message explaining they have doubts you qualify under conjugal class and giving you the opportunity to submit more proofs to support your application. Until you get this message, I really wouldn't worry about it.

 

[canadalover4987]

-cant buy insurance and be each others beneficiaries - incorrect, I have submitted insurance documents to CIC where my common law spouse is my beneficiary and I his

Thank you for your reply.

Are you in a same sex or heterosexual common law relationship?
What is the name of your insurance company? Did you buy it in the Philippines or you purchased it online? I mean do they have a designated reputable office?

My partner and i approached numerous reputable insurance companies in the Philippines and they turned us down saying that Philippine insurance companies follows the guidelines in accordance to Philippine family code. Meaning legitimate married couple wife/husband. And in family code there is no same sex or common law involved. Techinically common laws are strangers to each other in the eyes of Philippine law thus has no right to be a beneficiary. It has to by blood or marriage.

The worst part is even we get married legally for example in the US (or other countries that allows same sex), Philippine government will NOT honor the marriage because they see my partner as male by birth therefore my partner will always be remain single for the rest of her life. Isnt that a discriminatory?

Same with being a common law in the Philippines, as a same sex couple we will deprived by benefits other married heterosexual couple can have. I dont think its OK because its unfair. I will not settle in a country that is discrimination is very evident. No one deserves to be deprived with their rights just because of their sexual orientation.

Ive seen insurance policy available online but its too risky to invest in those companies that has no office in the Philippines. I bought insurance in Canada and i name her as my sole beneficiary in addition to my Wills. But she cant buy insurance in the Philippines.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

CIC will review the reasons why we cant do spousal or common law. Again their job is to check if this is not a relationship for convenience. So dont say that being genuine is irrelevant of course it will always be relevant whether couple will apply for spousal, common law or conjugal.

I agree with Rob. The very basis of a conjugal sponsorship app is that there must be legal and immigration barriers preventing marriage/common-law. If these barriers don't exist, the app doesn't qualify as conjugal; at that point, it is irrelevant if the relationship is genuine. It would be the same if a couple applied as common-law but had only been living together for 8 months; the app doesn't qualify as common-law, so it is irrelevant at that point whether the relationship is genuine.

How can we prove that we have cohabitated the affairs? Is family testimonial enough for CIC? How to prove to CIC that common law is genuine if we cant document it? We could have live in separate house though and can still claims we are together. Again, my partner owns a house and cant name me in the land title. Are you suggesting to rent for a year so i cant satisfy VO? I dont think so. Lol

Dont mixed the issue with heterosexual couples as to same sex couples. Its totally different.

For someone who claims to think outside of the box, you haven't really tried in this area. There are many other ways to prove cohabitation besides family letters. You can show mail in individual or both names at the same address. You can show the common address on your individual bank statements/credit card statements/cell phone bills/immigration documents/government documents/payslips/IDs etc. You can get letters from your neighbors/doctors/churches/volunteer organizations etc. confirming you live together. You can sign the Stat Dec of Common-law. You can show financial transfers proving you share bills. You can buy home items together. You can provide chats/texts of day to day life such as "grab milk on your way home". By the way, most of these ideas are actually stated on the IRCC website.

 

[Hu88a]

Having gone through a common law application and being approved, I can vouch for Rob_TO's point of view. We had considered trying conjugal initially (Indonesian spouse, Christian/Muslim mix, very conservative location in the country) due to what we felt were barriers to our relationship being considered common law. We relocated to a slightly less conservative location, but could not open joint accounts/leases/utilities etc. and only managed to stay together, providing proof through pictures. Work also required me to move from Indonesia to several other countries in the region where common law is not recognized (and in many cases frowned upon). She travelled with me on her visa free passport in the region, only taking breaks in our relationship to leave the country and re-enter a few days later, again with the proof being pictures and travel documents that coincided with us being in country together. We were successful as common law, despite whether the countries we were in recognized it or not. It's the Canadian Governments interpretation of common law that counts.



Same sex marriages are available in Thailand, for which neither of you require a visa, so there is no barrier to marriage, making conjugal difficult to prove.

Hi @Buletruck!

Came across this (obviously much later than the original thread) and found your story super interesting. My case sounds really similar to yours - common-law in a conservative country where it is technically not legal, different religious backgrounds, etc.

Our documentation of cohabitation is pretty solid, including a shared lease for >1year, but I am anticipating questions about why we didn't get married since this is so culturally unacceptable in my partner's country. Did you face any questions like that, and if so, any advice?

Feel free to DM me if this isn't the appropriate place to ask. Thanks so much

 

[armoured]

Hi @Buletruck!

Came across this (obviously much later than the original thread) and found your story super interesting. My case sounds really similar to yours - common-law in a conservative country where it is technically not legal, different religious backgrounds, etc.

Our documentation of cohabitation is pretty solid, including a shared lease for >1year, but I am anticipating questions about why we didn't get married since this is so culturally unacceptable in my partner's country. Did you face any questions like that, and if so, any advice?

Feel free to DM me if this isn't the appropriate place to ask. Thanks so much

I don't wish to speak for others members here but if the cohabitation and documentation is solid, there should be no significant issues with applying as common law. If you wish to add a letter of explanation that marriage would have been a problem due to local circumstances (such as different religions or same-sex relationship), it won't hurt.

 

[Hu88a]

I don't wish to speak for others members here but if the cohabitation and documentation is solid, there should be no significant issues with applying as common law. If you wish to add a letter of explanation that marriage would have been a problem due to local circumstances (such as different religions or same-sex relationship), it won't hurt.

Thanks so much for this!

We could have gotten married we have simply chosen to be common-law. I guess my concern is that they will rightly notice that this is quite an unusual thing to do in my partner's country (Jordan), and will have questions as to why we didn't just get married.

We have an AOR and I was thinking of submitting a letter explaining that while we have different religious backgrounds technically, we aren't individually religious at all, nor are we too concerned with Jordanian social pressures, and that is why we didn't immediately prioritize a wedding.

I may have just heard too many horror stories and be totally overthinking though?