What is considered a 'living' under 'Living History'?

[JennaJ86]

My partner and I are in the process of our FCS application and it's reached stage 2. The London VO has sent us an e-mail requiring additional documents including 'Living History', which was included but we think they may want a more thorough list. By that I mean my partner has come to stay with me various times ranging from 2 weeks to 5 months. Now we consider this as just a visit since during all those times, he's been on a visitor visa. So 6 month max, no work, etc. The normal everyday visitor visa.

We've assumed up until now that these time periods under the visitor visa was just that, a visit and therefore not classified as 'living' here.

Were we wrong? When time period has to elapse to go from 'visiting' to 'living'? Doesn't it count as living when the person has a work permit/residential visa/study visa? I've always assumed that under 6 months on a visitors visa is just a visit, not living.

Can anyone help clear this up? We're hoping to send off the additional documents tomorrow so our application doesn't become further delayed! (8 months and counting since we've seen each other, can this please just be over yet???)

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

 

[computergeek]

My partner and I are in the process of our FCS application and it's reached stage 2. The London VO has sent us an e-mail requiring additional documents including 'Living History', which was included but we think they may want a more thorough list. By that I mean my partner has come to stay with me various times ranging from 2 weeks to 5 months. Now we consider this as just a visit since during all those times, he's been on a visitor visa. So 6 month max, no work, etc. The normal everyday visitor visa.

We've assumed up until now that these time periods under the visitor visa was just that, a visit and therefore not classified as 'living' here.

Were we wrong? When time period has to elapse to go from 'visiting' to 'living'? Doesn't it count as living when the person has a work permit/residential visa/study visa? I've always assumed that under 6 months on a visitors visa is just a visit, not living.

Can anyone help clear this up? We're hoping to send off the additional documents tomorrow so our application doesn't become further delayed! (8 months and counting since we've seen each other, can this please just be over yet???)

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

Why is this question germane? Are they attempting to claim you were living together? Depending upon your own personal circumstances you may need to be very careful about how you answer this question.

 

[jarry96]

Is your Family Class Sponsorship for your partner based on a common-law relationship? You have to live together for a continuous 12-month period in order to be considered in a common-law relationship.

 

[da1000]

Im Jenna's partner let me try and clarify this a little, we are applying for a common law PR visa and the VO have asked for a full address history on form 5669e

Basically question 12 of form 5669e states: "List all addresses where you have lived since your 18 birthday"

Now i had done this already and listed all the addresses i consider i lived at, however as they are asking for more info they clearly see "living" different from me, so the question is what classes as "living" somewhere, does a two week stay in another country count as living somewhere for example, to me that would be visiting, the problem is the question is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

 

[jarry96]

I would list all the addresses where you stayed a significant amount of time. Certainly visits that are months in duration can be considered "living". I would suggest that trips taken on vacation somewhere would not constitute "living" whereas stays to be with your partner for months at a time would be. I would make the interpretation based on duration and intent.

Am I right that Jenna is Canadian and da1000 is British? May I ask if you have lived together continuously for 12 months at some point?

 

[Rob_TO]

Here is the main definition of common-law if needed: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf

5.35. What is cohabitation?
“Cohabitation” means “living together.” Two people who are cohabiting have combined their affairs
and set up their household together in one dwelling. To be considered common-law partners, they
must have cohabited for at least one year. This is the standard definition used across the federal
government. It means continuous cohabitation for one year, not intermittent cohabitation
adding up to one year. The continuous nature of the cohabitation is a universal understanding
based on case law.
While cohabitation means living together continuously, from time to time, one or the other partner
may have left the home for work or business travel, family obligations, and so on. The separation
must be temporary and short.

 

[da1000]

I would list all the addresses where you stayed a significant amount of time. Certainly visits that are months in duration can be considered "living". I would suggest that trips taken on vacation somewhere would not constitute "living" whereas stays to be with your partner for months at a time would be. I would make the interpretation based on duration and intent.

Am I right that Jenna is Canadian and da1000 is British? May I ask if you have lived together continuously for 12 months at some point?

Yeh makes sense thanks you are also correct Jenna is Canadian and I British, we lived together continuously for over two years while she was in the UK on a YMS Visa.

 

[jarry96]

Yeh makes sense thanks you are also correct Jenna is Canadian and I British, we lived together continuously for over two years while she was in the UK on a YMS Visa.

Good luck with your application process.
I attach the following for no important reason but it might be of some interest to you:

"According to case law, the definition of common-law partner should be read as “an individual who
is (ordinarily) cohabiting”. After the one year period of cohabitation has been established, the
partners may live apart for periods of time without legally breaking the cohabitation. For example,
a couple may have been separated due to armed conflict, illness of a family member, or for
employment or education-related reasons, and therefore do not cohabit at present. Despite the break in cohabitation, a common-law relationship exists if the couple has cohabited continuously in a conjugal relationship in the
past for at least one year and intend to do so again as soon as possible. There should be
evidence demonstrating that both parties are continuing the relationship, such as visits,
correspondence, and telephone calls. This situation is similar to a marriage where the parties are temporarily separated or not
cohabiting for a variety of reasons, but still considers themselves to be married and living in a
conjugal relationship with their spouse with the intention of living together as soon as possible.
For common-law relationships (and marriage), the longer the period of separation without any
cohabitation, the more difficult it is to establish that the common-law relationship (or marriage) still exists.

 

[steerpike]

Good luck with your application process.
I attach the following for no important reason but it might be of some interest to you:

"According to case law, the definition of common-law partner should be read as “an individual who
is (ordinarily) cohabiting”. After the one year period of cohabitation has been established, the
partners may live apart for periods of time without legally breaking the cohabitation. For example,
a couple may have been separated due to armed conflict, illness of a family member, or for
employment or education-related reasons, and therefore do not cohabit at present. Despite the break in cohabitation, a common-law relationship exists if the couple has cohabited continuously in a conjugal relationship in the
past for at least one year and intend to do so again as soon as possible. There should be
evidence demonstrating that both parties are continuing the relationship, such as visits,
correspondence, and telephone calls. This situation is similar to a marriage where the parties are temporarily separated or not
cohabiting for a variety of reasons, but still considers themselves to be married and living in a
conjugal relationship with their spouse with the intention of living together as soon as possible.
For common-law relationships (and marriage), the longer the period of separation without any
cohabitation, the more difficult it is to establish that the common-law relationship (or marriage) still exists.

That doesnt make any sense. A marriage exists until there is a divorce. If people separate, it is considered legal after 90 days. But a marriage is never disolved automatically just because people are not together for a few years or even for many many years. I dont know when a common-law marriage is considered automatically over, it would be interesting to find out.

 

[jarry96]

The marriage would exist in name only. Lets say a married couple broke up years ago in the past and then went their separate ways having no contact. Later either could start a common-law relationship with another person legally. Likewise it would be wrong and fraudulent to make a claim for some kind of financial benefit from a third party (eg. dependent status on an income tax return) based on that marriage that is no longer factual.

For common-law relationships (and marriage), the longer the period of separation without any cohabitation, the more difficult it is to establish that the common-law relationship (or marriage) still exists.

The onus of proof would lie with the spouses to prove the relationship exists other than in name.

 

[steerpike]

The marriage would exist in name only. Lets say a married couple broke up years ago in the past and then went their separate ways having no contact. Later either could start a common-law relationship with another person legally. Likewise it would be wrong and fraudulent to make a claim for some kind of financial benefit from a third party (eg. dependent status on an income tax return) based on that marriage that is no longer factual.

For common-law relationships (and marriage), the longer the period of separation without any cohabitation, the more difficult it is to establish that the common-law relationship (or marriage) still exists.

The onus of proof would lie with the spouses to prove the relationship exists other than in name.

But you need a divorce to end the marriage. As far as CRA is concerned you have to file as married.

 

[Rob_TO]

But you need a divorce to end the marriage. As far as CRA is concerned you have to file as married.

But according to the CIC, you can still apply as common-law with someone even though the applicant, sponsor or both are married on paper to other people.

 

[canadianwoman]

I would list all the addresses where you stayed a significant amount of time. Certainly visits that are months in duration can be considered "living". I would suggest that trips taken on vacation somewhere would not constitute "living" whereas stays to be with your partner for months at a time would be. I would make the interpretation based on duration and intent.

Am I right that Jenna is Canadian and da1000 is British? May I ask if you have lived together continuously for 12 months at some point?

The question of whether you are common-law is not what they are asking about, is that right? That is, they have accepted you are common law, now they just want more detailed info on where you were living with or without your partner?

It sounds to me like they just want to know more info about where you were living. In which case, I would agree with the poster quoted above. 2 weeks somewhere other than your partner's home is a vacation. But if you spent 5 months living together with your partner in one place, count that as one of your addresses and list it. They are not interested in what kind of visa you had for this question. As an example, I know someone who has an apartment in Kuala Lumpur, and has been living there for 3 years. But he has been classed as a 'tourist' the whole time. He comes in, is allowed to stay for 90 days, leaves at the end of 90 days for a day or two, then comes back. There is no point in him trying to claim that because each stay is only 90 days, and he is classed as a tourist, he is not living in Malaysia. Same with me when I lived in South Korea: I would leave the country every few months to 'restart' my visiting visa, but I certainly claim on forms to have been living there.
They have asked for more info on this point, so whatever you gave them was not sufficient. I would list all stays under 6 months that you did not previously list, then attach an explanation saying that you had not listed these previously because you thought the question was only referring to official stays of 6 months or longer, not shorter stays as a visitor. If you explain why you did not list these stays before, the visa officer should be satisfied that you were not trying to misrepresent yourself.

 

[Rob_TO]

They could also be asking this to make sure no additional police certificates are needed. Once you hit the 6 month mark in any country, you're required to get a police report from there (except Canada i guess).

It's kind of a silly process though as there's no definition of the word "living". Is it 2 weeks together? 1 month? 2 months? 6 months? They should really define a specific length of time spent in 1 place that changes it from visiting/vacation to living.

 

[JennaJ86]

They could also be asking this to make sure no additional police certificates are needed. Once you hit the 6 month mark in any country, you're required to get a police report from there (except Canada i guess).

It's kind of a silly process though as there's no definition of the word "living". Is it 2 weeks together? 1 month? 2 months? 6 months? They should really define a specific length of time spent in 1 place that changes it from visiting/vacation to living.

Exactly my point! It's a very ambiguous term. But we ended up doing exactly as Canadianwoman and Jarry96 mentioned. We made a list of all the times he stayed with me in my home and included a detailed cover letter explaining why we did not list these under addresses lived at the first time. They were included in the visiting history but we've now explained it extremely clearly so there's no confusion this time. The living history list is now double as long as it was before but it's all there with no gaps whatsoever. Hopefully that appeases the VO and we're not delayed too much longer.

They really need to clarify certain points in the guidance notes as some questions are left up to the interpretation of the applicant which can cause problems. Not to mention that they go back on what they mean a few times between the guidance notes and the forms themselves. Example, In one of the guidance notes, they state to list addresses from most recent to earliest, but in one of the forms, it states to list them as earliest to most recent. It's deceptive and a major headache.

Anyways, thanks to everyone who responded! Really appreciate the input. Keep your fingers crossed for us!