would we qualify for common law?

[girlfromthenorthcountry]

We want to apply for sponsorship in September when we will have been living together for 1 year but would we still qualify if we are apart for 3 months?
The reason we have to be apart is that we are living in Mexico but my visa is expired so I have to go back to Canada to renew it. We also wanted to move to Canada but it's hard on money you make in Mexico so I was going to get help from my parents for me to go back and work and make money so that then my common law partner can join me... it may take less time than 3 months but he also needs to get a visa to come.
He will come on the tourist visa and in September we would apply for inland sponsorship.

Would we qualify as common law or conjugal partners?

What if we were apart for only 1 month? 2 months? is the reason good enough?

 

[chelley]

i don't think you would qualify for common law... it's 1 year of continous co-habitation, which means no separations... they tend to over look a weekend or two, maybe a week or two if there was good reason, but i don't think any longer than that would qualify...

you would likely meet the conjugal since there was a valid legal reason you could not meet the common law... focus on that when explaining and do not state any intention to marry (if you intend to marry they will expect you to do so before you apply).... but they may still question it, especially if you are both in Canada...

has he been to canada before? TRVs are sometimes hard to be approved when there is a relationship in the picture..

Good luck!

 

[girlfromthenorthcountry]

well we also have the option of getting married in mind it is just that we wont be able to afford a big or very nice wedding at this time... it is all money reasons why we have to seperate for awhile. I don't know maybe we will get married legally and have a ceremony later when we can afford it but that seems weird.
I am worried that we wont get approved if we do conjugal because it will be just a year exactly.

 

[chelley]

conjugal doesn't require one year co-habitation... i'm sure your relationship started before you moved in together so start the "story" of your relationship at the time when it started...

if you mention that you would like to have a big wedding, conjugal will be denied... you can do a legal wedding and have a big ceremony after... that is what some do...

 

[BeShoo]

A legal wedding without many guests and such, together with proof of a solid relationship that developed over a long period of time would probably be the best route to go.

In your situation, it will be almost impossible to prove a valid common law relationship. Your best shot at a conjugal relationship would be if both of you applied for visas and got denied. Although financial hardship sometimes carries weight in conjugal partner cases, that is not normally considered to be a good enough reason to be separated. Visa considerations are a good reason.

 

[MexiCana]

I agree with the others, marriage is the way to go. Bear in mind however that if you are applying outland through the d.f. there are stories of some of the employees there having certain preconceptions about marriage (e.g. questioning marriages where the girl's family was in Canada and missed the wedding, saying that a family would never miss their daughter's wedding for any reason). I haven't experienced this personally but have read of it here in the last 6 months. Trying searching "CIC Mexico City."

I still think marriage is your best bet, just that you want to plan your marriage, even if it's modest, so it's less likely to raise questions and/or have reasonable explanations for why your personal choices may deviate from their cultural expectations and make sure to highlight them in your application.

 

[BeShoo]

It's quite tricky, because a marriage entered into solely for immigration purposes is invalid by definition. It could be classified as a "marriage of convenience." What runs against finding it as a marriage of convenience is that it isn't solely for immigration purposes. The fact that you have a long history together helps to show that it's valid, even if it wasn't a big wedding. It's tricky and there's a fine line there between acceptable and not acceptable. Hopefully, you have some story and evidence of the development of your relationship up until the date you moved in together, plus you have the period of co-habitation. In this scenario, the wedding certificate merely adds credibility to your common law relationship, which is already fairly solid even if it doesn't quite meet the standards to qualify. The marriage is documentary proof that you are serious about the conjugal relationship continuing.

You do need to have good reasons why your wedding would have the normal things associated with it.