Traveling home while trying to achieve 12 months being in common law r.

[Cokolada]

Hello everyone!
I have some questions and doubts regarding common law sponsorship.I would appreciate any answers I could get.
Here is my story:
I have been in a relationship 2 years,living with my bf 5 months.He has already applied for PR and hopefully he will get it soon,by the time he gets it we will be living together 1 year which is according to immigration a common law relationship and he is planning to sponsor me. Now, my concerns are that during that 12 months of common law relationship he has been traveling back home to India for a month and a half.Will that be a problem ? We do have joint account,same phone bills,life insurance we will also declare our self as common law when applying for tax etc. My main concern is that traveling issue.I am also planning to visit my family this year and I don't know how that will affect that 12 months time frame. Because my work permit is going to expire in at the end of this year and we want to apply before my permit expires.

So please if anyone knows anything about this I would be very grateful to get some replies.

 

[zardoz]

Yes, this will be a problem. You will probably have to restart the clock each time he returned. How long was he away for on each trip? How many times was he away?

 

[Rob_TO]

Breaks are allowed in qualifying for common-law if 1 spouse has to leave for family, work, education, or some other trip. According to CIC the breaks must be "temporary and short". The problem is, there is no set definition in terms of how many days or weeks this equals. So it is basically up to the visa officer reviewing your file if he/she thinks that the 1.5 month trip terminates the common-law qualifying, and starts the clock at 0 again.

Usually any trips apart over 3 weeks, and you are asking for trouble. There have been other cases seen on this forum, of common-law apps getting rejected due to a trip taken of around 1 month. 1.5 months seems to me like too much.

 

[Cokolada]

He only went once,as a matter of fact he is on that trip right now,he already planned and bought the tickets before we decided to go with this plan.Originally,I was about to apply for PR on my own but they changed to rules for CEC for my occupation.So when I went for the consultation to the lawyer office he suggested the common law as a best way to extend my stay since we are in genuine relationship. But starting the clock again would mean one year from February to February and my visa is going to expire in January this year.So what should I do? Would marriage be better option?

 

[zardoz]

In that case you are looking at the clock restarting from zero when he returns. Marriage would seem to be a better solution.

 

[screech339]

You have to be very careful. I had a case whereby the sponsor being the PR almost lost the PR status due to misrepresentation due to common-law.

The PR sponsor sent the common-law application less than 1 year after landing as PR. CIC saw this time discrepancy and accused PR of not disclosing the relationship during PR processing. Had the PR applied for common-law sponsorship a little over one year after landing, then it wouldn't be an issue. The PR sponsor ended up getting to keep PR status but now got a record on file of misrepresentation.

So if you plan on filing common-law sponsorship, you must wait 1 year after the applicant has landed otherwise CIC will accuse your bf of misrepresentation in PR processing due to not information change of relationship to CIC.

 

[Rob_TO]

The PR sponsor sent the common-law application less than 1 year after landing as PR. CIC saw this time discrepancy and accused PR of not disclosing the relationship during PR processing. Had the PR applied for common-law sponsorship a little over one year after landing, then it wouldn't be an issue. The PR sponsor ended up getting to keep PR status but now got a record on file of misrepresentation.

I don't understand this. If someone was living together for say 6 months, and at that point one spouse received PR status, at that time they are still just dating and haven't reached common-law legal status so wouldn't have to report anything for landing.
6 months later they would officially be common-law, and could apply for CL sponsorship. I really don't understand what the issue is with this?

 

[screech339]

I don't understand this. If someone was living together for say 6 months, and at that point one spouse received PR status, at that time they are still just dating and haven't reached common-law legal status so wouldn't have to report anything for landing.
6 months later they would officially be common-law, and could apply for CL sponsorship. I really don't understand what the issue is with this?

I understand the confusion but try telling that to CIC. Remember if you say you are in a common law on specific day, it means you were in a relationship status for 12 months prior, not as bf/gf come and go relationship. You were in fact living in with the bf/gf for the common law. You were beginning to pursue a legitimate 12 month relationship. That is how CIC viewed it. And I think that is why the PR almost lost the status.

 

[screech339]

This person had an interview with the CIC agent prior to applicant getting AIP. CIC was not questioning the genuineness of the relationship between PR and the applicant. They did questioned her on her change in relationship during the PR process. The agent told the PR that the status will be revoked due to misrepresentation in the PR process. PR had to apply through H&C grounds in appealing the PR status decision. A few weeks later, PR got to keep status but now got a record on file of misrepresentation.

Once the PR got the status maintained, the applicant got AIP status for common law PR.

 

[Rob_TO]

I understand the confusion but try telling that to CIC. Remember if you say you are in a common law on specific day, it means you were in a relationship status for 12 months prior, not as bf/gf come and go relationship. You were in fact living in with the bf/gf for the common law. You were beginning to pursue a legitimate 12 month relationship. That is how CIC viewed it. And I think that is why the PR almost lost the status.

Yes but while qualifying for CL, you are not CL. There is NO legal definition of a relationship while doing the 12 months qualifying. You do not get legal CL status until the 1 year mark, so anything before that is simply dating, even if you're living together. If you are not CL, and not married, what else could you be?

There is absolutely nothing in the CIC manuals or guides, stating that you have to declare someone if you have not yet achieved legal CL status. If you were engaged to someone and landed, would CIC claim misrepresentation because you are planning to get married?

I believe the situation that you described, was a complete error by CIC and pursued by a visa officer that didn't understand or misinterpreted the rules.

 

[screech339]

I think the logic behind it is that if one were to land as PR from outside the country, how can the PR actually maintain the 12 months of living together if you applied less than 12 months. With your logic, one can in theory land one day and than apply for common law the next month, saying that they lived together 12 months. When they were in fact 11 together in foreign country, 1 month apart. So to keep the 12 continuous months together, it would work if the PR has landed inland. In PR's case, he/she landed outland as single dependent child of mother.

 

[Rob_TO]

I think the logic behind it is that if one were to land as PR from outside the country, how can the PR actually maintain the 12 months of living together if you applied less than 12 months. With your logic, one can in theory land one day and than apply for common law the next month, saying that they lived together 12 months. When they were in fact 11 together in foreign country, 1 month apart. So to keep the 12 continuous months together, it would work if the PR has landed inland.

It could work several ways. The gf/bf could travel to Canada as a visitor at the same time the PR landed to continue qualifying, or the new PR could immediately return back to home country after landing to continue the common-law qualifying.

It still looks like CIC made a huge mistake in that case, unless there is some info missing like the couple lived apart for a significant time during qualifying.

But just based on the basic rules... there is absolutely no legal reason at all that says applying for CL sponsorship can't be done within the first year, or even the first month, after someone gets PR status.

 

[screech339]

After discussing the issue with Leon on the legitimacy of the action taken by CIC, and having the message erased from inbox, it could be possible that she may have been asked at landing if she was in any relationship and she answered no. And thus when she applied for CL less than 12 months, she basically misrepresented herself by lying about having no boyfriend. This could be the only reason Leon and I could come up with for justification of revoking her PR status due to misrepresentation.

 

[Rob_TO]

After discussing the issue with Leon on the legitimacy of the action taken by CIC, and having the message erased from inbox, it could be possible that she may have been asked at landing if she was in any relationship and she answered no. And thus when she applied for CL less than 12 months, she basically misrepresented herself by lying about having no boyfriend. This could be the only reason Leon and I could come up with for justification of revoking her PR status due to misrepresentation.

But whether or not you have a bf/gf, or if you had been dating them a week, month, or even a few years... is completely irrelevant at landing. The only thing that matters is if you have an official/legal relationship recognizable to CIC, and the only 2 ones that qualify here would be married or officially common-law. Without a legal common-law spouse, they would be "single" according to CIC.

The only other possible interpretation I could see here is if you tried to sponsor someone under conjugal category, but didn't declare them as conjugal partner at landing. But even this i'm not sure at, as I'm not sure if it's possible to add a conjugal partner to a PR app done through skilled worker or other category.

The only reason i can see why this situation happened, is the visa officer made a big mistake.

 

[screech339]

Whether or not if you have a relationship at landing. If she did in fact say "no" to question "do you have a boyfriend". She lied to the agent at landing. That's misrepresentation. If she was not asked any question of the nature of relationship at landing, then she didn't lie.