Questions on Sponsoring spouse form

[Penismighter]

I have a few questions about the forms to fill out on the sponsoring spouse.

My spouse is a polish national and we are applying as common-law. She is currently here on an IEC permit which expires in November.

1. In sponsor evaluation, It asks "Current undertaking" Does it mean I am only undertaking myself, or her as well, since we live together?

2. For the application should I say that she "lives in canada" and that we "live together" as we've been told stating such can have our application rejected, but she is a temporary resident under IEC, no? She has a Sin #.

3. Should she state her address here in Canada when referring to her residency? Her IEC will expire before the application will be processed but we will submit it before it expires.

4. Her application asks if she receives financial support, we share living expenses, does that count? How should we state that in her application.

5. She wants to extend her stay here after IEC. She will return to Poland briefly before it expires, when she come back should she enter as a Tourist, or should she apply for an extension now? She also has an option of returning from Poland one week before her IEC expires. Should she reenter as IEC, then change her status to a tourist? She has a biometric passport and does not require a visa for tourism.

 

[Unhappy]

CIC abhors "Common Law" and "Congugal Partners" apps. An assistant to my MP boldly told me, in writing , no less, that CIC won't grant PR's to straight couples but only gay people or others who can't get married. They won't say this outright in public and may pass token apps because that policy contravenes The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They also do not like people who come under one visa class and then try and switch. Take your girl friend to a jeweler to pick out a ring and get married. Everything gets much easier after that. If your worried about the relationship falling apart and the financial consequences of that, get a Prenuptual Agreement from a lawyer or do-it-yourself Self Counsel kit.

 

[tink23]

I have a few questions about the forms to fill out on the sponsoring spouse.

My spouse is a polish national and we are applying as common-law. She is currently here on an IEC permit which expires in November.

1. In sponsor evaluation, It asks "Current undertaking" Does it mean I am only undertaking myself, or her as well, since we live together?

2. For the application should I say that she "lives in canada" and that we "live together" as we've been told stating such can have our application rejected, but she is a temporary resident under IEC, no? She has a Sin #.

3. Should she state her address here in Canada when referring to her residency? Her IEC will expire before the application will be processed but we will submit it before it expires.

4. Her application asks if she receives financial support, we share living expenses, does that count? How should we state that in her application.

5. She wants to extend her stay here after IEC. She will return to Poland briefly before it expires, when she come back should she enter as a Tourist, or should she apply for an extension now? She also has an option of returning from Poland one week before her IEC expires. Should she reenter as IEC, then change her status to a tourist? She has a biometric passport and does not require a visa for tourism.

1. Print off the sponsorship guide and have it beside you when answering each form. There are detailed instructions for each question for each form, so this will help guide you through that.

2. For the PR application, yes, she is living with you. This will not have a negative impact on your application. It will be a good thing.

3. She is living with you. List your address. If she moves back to Poland during the application, then yo can update her address with cic.

4. When I filled his out this with my husband I listed exactly that. I stated we share expenses. I explained that my wage was higher than my husband's and so I essentially was paying more for rent, food, etc, however, I stated that our expenses are all combined and we contributed together.

5. I'm not sure if the IEC can be extended, if it can't then she can enter as a visitor. Now here is where she will have to be very careful of he language she uses when she is going through immigration and talking to the CBSA officer. For the CBSA, she CANT say that she is moving to live with you. She is only a visitor. She is visiting you. She can show proof of the pr sponsorship in place, including payment of fees and sponsor approval (if you have it at that point).

 

[tink23]

CIC abhors "Common Law" and "Congugal Partners" apps. An assistant to my MP boldly told me, in writing , no less, that CIC won't grant PR's to straight couples but only gay people or others who can't get married. They won't say this outright in public and may pass token apps because that policy contravenes The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They also do not like people who come under one visa class and then try and switch. Take your girl friend to a jeweler to pick out a ring and get married. Everything gets much easier after that. If your worried about the relationship falling apart and the financial consequences of that, get a Prenuptual Agreement from a lawyer or do-it-yourself Self Counsel kit.

This is completely false. Cic does not dismiss common law application. In fact there are probably just as many common law applications approved as there are married applications. Please don't spread false information. As long as there is proof that a couple has lived together for at least 12 months, there is no need to worry about applying as common law.

Cic is very hard on conjugal applications, but this is not one, so there is no need to worry here.

 

[Unhappy]

This is completely false. Cic does not dismiss common law application. In fact there are probably just as many common law applications approved as there are married applications. Please don't spread false information. As long as there is proof that a couple has lived together for at least 12 months, there is no need to worry about applying as common law.

Cic is very hard on conjugal applications, but this is not one, so there is no need to worry here.

Listen, I applied as Common Law with irrefutable proof of living together for more than 12 months, actively supporting them AND...get this...We already had a kid together AND I submitted a paternity test to prove I was the Dad. I had the PR app in hand, went to the Embassy to submit app and on arequest from them for interview for TRV, for my now wife and the first thing I was told was "Are you going to marry her ?". "No, why not ?". The interiew went down hill from there. They then rejected our TRV apps and told us to basically forget about it. I complained to my MP's office and they told me that which I have already said. Maybe it varies from Country to Country and they don't want to inflame any tensions or be taken to court, but that is what happened to us.

 

[Penismighter]

Can you please stick to the questions I asked in the original post.

 

[tink23]

Listen, I applied as Common Law with irrefutable proof of living together for more than 12 months, actively supporting them AND...get this...We already had a kid together AND I submitted a paternity test to prove I was the Dad. I had the PR app in hand, went to the Embassy to submit app and on arequest from them for interview for TRV, for my now wife and the first thing I was told was "Are you going to marry her ?". "No, why not ?". The interiew went down hill from there. They then rejected our TRV apps and told us to basically forget about it. I complained to my MP's office and they told me that which I have already said. Maybe it varies from Country to Country and they don't want to inflame any tensions or be taken to court, but that is what happened to us.

Applying for a TRV has nothing to do with a PR sponsorship app. Sorry for your bad experience, but it doesn't mean you should go around telling people not to apply as common law, especially since this was an issue of applying for a visitor visa.

 

[tink23]

Can you please stick to the questions I asked in the original post.

Answered above.

 

[Unhappy]

Applying for a TRV has nothing to do with a PR sponsorship app. Sorry for your bad experience, but it doesn't mean you should go around telling people not to apply as common law, especially since this was an issue of applying for a visitor visa.

Iwas told by my MP's office in an 'off the record' kind of way that they reserve common law apps for people that cannot get legally married. The reason my wife's TRV app was rejected is they weren't confident she would return to her native country before it expires (extensions not withstanding). We appealed, and were called to the embassy where the noted conversations took place. Again ...rejected. Why ? I get married and we apply for a TRV app and BINGO, no problem. First TRV app was approved without a hitch. NOTHING ELSE CHANGED !!

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Iwas told by my MP's office in an 'off the record' kind of way that they reserve common law apps for people that cannot get legally married. The reason my wife's TRV app was rejected is they weren't confident she would return to her native country before it expires (extensions not withstanding). We appealed, and were called to the embassy where the noted conversations took place. Again ...rejected. Why ? I get married and we apply for a TRV app and BINGO, no problem. First TRV app was approved without a hitch. NOTHING ELSE CHANGED !!

Coming from the sponsor of a common-law app applicant approved without issue, I can say that what you were told is completely wrong. Have a look at the London spreadsheet here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kYJ0Xo_jHLeArkCVeicZyqIE8YLpnZqVJlFrnpmKMx0/edit#gid=1153110695. They have a column noting whether an app is common-law or married. There is no difference in approvals between the two.

Any issues with your TRV are completely separate from the topic at hand.

 

[Unhappy]

Coming from the sponsor of a common-law app applicant approved without issue, I can say that what you were told is completely wrong. Have a look at the London spreadsheet here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kYJ0Xo_jHLeArkCVeicZyqIE8YLpnZqVJlFrnpmKMx0/edit#gid=1153110695. They have a column noting whether an app is common-law or married. There is no difference in approvals between the two.

Any issues with your TRV are completely separate from the topic at hand.

I already spoke to the matter in an earlier post. Our Charter of Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so of course they are not going to articulate a policy, in public, that does and of course they are going to allow some cases to pass, in case they were challenged in court. TRV's have EVERYTHING to do with this as the original poster said, as was my intention, to be with my partner and child, in Canada, using TRV's while a more permanent PR Visa is being processed. There are basically two criteria, I've learned the hard way, for getting a TRV: 1) Convincing a CIC agent that the applicant will return to their native country, by the time the TRV expires or 2) Having an existing app for PR, under one of the several categories, that is predicted to succeed. In the first case, since my wife was in an impoverished country, there was significant risk of her not returning, if she got into Canada. In the second case,obviously they were not convinced of the probability of success of a Common Law or Conjugal Partner app, so they turned down her TRV, at first application and then again on appeal. In fact the &^%%* interviewing us in the Embassy told us not to even bother submitting our Common Law app as i had it in front of me, ready to hand over. And listen we have a daughter and I submitted a DNA test certifying that I was the father. Does the original poster have a kid with his Polish girlfriend ? No he does not, so we conclude I had a more potent demonstration of a "genuine relationship", as I think they call it. So why did you get yours seamlessly ? I don't know why. I can tell you that agents have a great deal of latitude and their rejection forms are vague and you can't appeal unless your situation changes. Maybe I just got a ^&&*% for an agent on that day. You did not mention what country your spouse was from and that can make a huge difference also. As we know, people from certain countries are risking even their lives to get here. Would women from these desperate countries enter into bogus relationships just to get here ? Sure many would. The wild card in all of this, for the original poster is how CIC views Poland and what sort of unpublished violation stats they are sitting on. If they have a lot of cases of Polish apps requesting TRVs while their PR are being processed and then disappearing, then he could get turned down. Same goes for longevity stats of the relationships for that country.Cheers.

 

[PMM]

HI

I already spoke to the matter in an earlier post. Our Charter of Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so of course they are not going to articulate a policy, in public, that does and of course they are going to allow some cases to pass, in case they were challenged in court. TRV's have EVERYTHING to do with this as the original poster said, as was my intention, to be with my partner and child, in Canada, using TRV's while a more permanent PR Visa is being processed. There are basically two criteria, I've learned the hard way, for getting a TRV: 1) Convincing a CIC agent that the applicant will return to their native country, by the time the TRV expires or 2) Having an existing app for PR, under one of the several categories, that is predicted to succeed. In the first case, since my wife was in an impoverished country, there was significant risk of her not returning, if she got into Canada. In the second case,obviously they were not convinced of the probability of success of a Common Law or Conjugal Partner app, so they turned down her TRV, at first application and then again on appeal. In fact the &^%%* interviewing us in the Embassy told us not to even bother submitting our Common Law app as i had it in front of me, ready to hand over. And listen we have a daughter and I submitted a DNA test certifying that I was the father. Does the original poster have a kid with his Polish girlfriend ? No he does not, so we conclude I had a more potent demonstration of a "genuine relationship", as I think they call it. So why did you get yours seamlessly ? I don't know why. I can tell you that agents have a great deal of latitude and their rejection forms are vague and you can't appeal unless your situation changes. Maybe I just got a ^&&*% for an agent on that day. You did not mention what country your spouse was from and that can make a huge difference also. As we know, people from certain countries are risking even their lives to get here. Would women from these desperate countries enter into bogus relationships just to get here ? Sure many would. The wild card in all of this, for the original poster is how CIC views Poland and what sort of unpublished violation stats they are sitting on. If they have a lot of cases of Polish apps requesting TRVs while their PR are being processed and then disappearing, then he could get turned down. Same goes for longevity stats of the relationships for that country.Cheers.

1. Since your sponsorship would have had to be submitted Mississauga with the application, you are barking up the wrong tree.
2. You can't walk into an overseas office and submit any sort of sponsorship application.
3. Your spouse was refused a TRV, with a c/law partner, it was her intention to remain permanently in Canada. (you presenting an application for her confirms that) so her intention was not to visit, that is why the TRV was refused.

 

[Unhappy]

HI

1. Since your sponsorship would have had to be submitted Mississauga with the application, you are barking up the wrong tree.
2. You can't walk into an overseas office and submit any sort of sponsorship application.
3. Your spouse was refused a TRV, with a c/law partner, it was her intention to remain permanently in Canada. (you presenting an application for her confirms that) so her intention was not to visit, that is why the TRV was refused.

That's absolutely correct. It's called Dual Intent. But, we went at it a year later, as a married couple with Dual Intent and we sailed through it. I did a ton of research on this and i can almost quote the policy on dual intent verbatim...It says "Dual Intent in and of itself cannot be the only reason for rejecting a TRV application". You are also absolutely correct the first stage of an App goes to Mississauga but I was told when called to Manila that since I did not have a PR application that was in process, I should bring mine to the interview and get it submitted asap. When i showed up at the interview, with the completed app, she refused to even look at it and told me not to bother even submitting it anywhere because it would be rejected. She first tried to say that it was because we had not been together for, I think it was, 12 contiguous months. I replied that I understood that however, there were several reasons for me to receive an exemption from those rules and I qualified on every account. FYI they are employment obligations, family care of young or the ill, school and other blameless reasons. Furthermore I told her that I thought our baby was irrefutable proof of a legitimate union. I turned to my stack to show her those clauses and she blushed and said she was already aware of them and then changed the subject.In the end, she again told me Common Law app had no chance of success. With all due respect and I'm not critical of your plan, because it was mine also, I think you are better off to see a family law lawyer about your relationship, before proceeding with immigration. What I didn't say in my previous posts, is that on return to Canada , after failing with my mission, was went i got that email from my MP's assistant about them reserving common Law for people who can't get married. I knew this was against the Charter so I went to see a VERY esteemed retired Superior Court Judge of the Ontario Bench. Knowing that I was thoroughly pissed off he laughed and told me that this was great news, as I told him that I didn't have the energy or money to fight on Constitutional grounds and was thinking I should just get married, with a Prenup. He agreed emphatically. He told me that the statistical odds of my marriage lasting were probably less than 50 % and that Common Law rates were even worse for longevity. He told me that I was in far better shape being married with a prenup than I would be in a Common Law relationship without a Separation Agreement. He went on to explain that after, I think it was, two years of Common Law, we were in the eyes of the law, married with the same rights on separation. Since I was the guy with the house, the income, the savings, I'd be screwed on separation. He then went on to say that a Separation Agreement, although they technically exist for Common Law, would have a hard time passing legal scrutiny and on pragmatic terms, extremely difficult to implement. Since Common Law relationships almost never have a clear anniversary date, but tend to develop over time, the anniversary date of our union would likely be the date I declared, on those signed immigration papers, that our union began. By the time my wife stepped foot on Canadian soil, she'd already be my spouse, according to law. The 'common law' - that law that originates from court rulings, already determined that a prenup is null and void if it was signed after the marriage invitations went out in the mail. A bride had successfully argued that she signed her prenup under duress as she would have been too humiliated and embarrassed to tell everyone it is off. If that is the case for a married couple , what would be the Court's interpretation if a Separation Agreement was entered into AFTER a Common Law marriage had been established ? If you are Common Law for say 5 years, how do you bring it up with your wife and what would be your offered reason for the surprise? What would she think ? What do you do if she refuses ? Split up ? And on and on it goes. The only difference between your proposed union and an actual marriage is that your proposed union, if the stats are against you, which they are, your separation ends in a terrible mess,but, marriage with a prenup is a clear and clean break up. And of course you get a certificate from a judge or holy man. If it's the hassle and expense of marriage, it's quick and cheap at City Hall or Court and your bride can have a nice religious wedding in a church, when you can afford it. CIC does not question the authenticity of marriage unless you've done it so many times, you have rice marks on your face. I can only talk from my own experience. I wish you well, whatever you do.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

She first tried to say that it was because we had not been together for, I think it was, 12 contiguous months. I replied that I understood that however, there were several reasons for me to receive an exemption from those rules[/b] and I qualified on every account. FYI they are employment obligations, family care of young or the ill, school and other blameless reasons.

You had not lived together for 12 continuous months and were not common-law; there are no EXCEPTIONS, as common-law is an actual legal status. It doesn't matter if you were away for family obligations etc.; you are not common-law if you did not live together continuously for 12 months. What you tried to do is like submitting a married app when you weren't actually married and just expecting them to make an exception.

What you are saying can apply to conjugal; it is very difficult and is reserved for those who are unable to be married or become common-law because of legal/immigration barriers.