PFL - Sponsor Failed to Declare CLP

[fatherofabarber]

Background:​

• Sponsor became a permanent resident on October 9, 2024 through Express Entry CEC.
• We have been in a genuine relationship since 2019, married in February 2025.
• IRCC issued a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) questioning potential misrepresentation, suggesting that we might have met the common-law definition (IRPR 1(1)) before sponsor's PR declaration in 2024.

Key Facts:​

• Between December 2021 and October 2023, applicant and sponsor resided at a shared student basement with four tenants.
• Applicant had just returned from Japan and was not a formal resident — she was staying informally (“crashing”) while adjusting to life back in Canada.
• The household was non-conjugal: no joint lease, bank accounts, tax filings, or exclusive living space.
• Screenshots of roommate group chats, photos, and context demonstrate that the residence was a shared student environment, not a conjugal household.
• Their first true conjugal household began under a joint lease starting October 2023.

Our Position:​

• The couple did not meet IRPR 1(1) requirements (cohabitation + conjugal relationship for 12 months) before October 2024.
• Declaring common-law status during PR landing would have been factually incorrect and potentially misleading.
• The decision to declare “single” was therefore truthful and compliant, not deceptive.

Potential Evidence:​

• Roommate group chat screenshots showing shared chores, rent, and multiple tenants.
• Photos of shared common spaces.
• Separate financial and CRA records showing independent status. (Our relationship status on tax filings and other IRCC applications was "single" throughout)
• Relationship timeline and prior refusal from 2021 confirming IRCC itself previously rejected a common-law claim.
• Testimonies from roommates confirming the non-conjugal and informal nature of Ayaka's stay at 2705 E 57th Ave address.
  
  

Also discussing this with a lawyer starting tomorrow, would like to learn about people's experiences in similar cases and how it played out for them.

 

[Buletruck]

Background:​

• Sponsor became a permanent resident on October 9, 2024 through Express Entry CEC.
• We have been in a genuine relationship since 2019, married in February 2025.
• IRCC issued a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) questioning potential misrepresentation, suggesting that we might have met the common-law definition (IRPR 1(1)) before sponsor's PR declaration in 2024.

Key Facts:​

• Between December 2021 and October 2023, applicant and sponsor resided at a shared student basement with four tenants.
• Applicant had just returned from Japan and was not a formal resident — she was staying informally (“crashing”) while adjusting to life back in Canada.
• The household was non-conjugal: no joint lease, bank accounts, tax filings, or exclusive living space.
• Screenshots of roommate group chats, photos, and context demonstrate that the residence was a shared student environment, not a conjugal household.
• Their first true conjugal household began under a joint lease starting October 2023.

Our Position:​

• The couple did not meet IRPR 1(1) requirements (cohabitation + conjugal relationship for 12 months) before October 2024.
• Declaring common-law status during PR landing would have been factually incorrect and potentially misleading.
• The decision to declare “single” was therefore truthful and compliant, not deceptive.

Potential Evidence:​

• Roommate group chat screenshots showing shared chores, rent, and multiple tenants.
• Photos of shared common spaces.
• Separate financial and CRA records showing independent status. (Our relationship status on tax filings and other IRCC applications was "single" throughout)
• Relationship timeline and prior refusal from 2021 confirming IRCC itself previously rejected a common-law claim.
• Testimonies from roommates confirming the non-conjugal and informal nature of Ayaka's stay at 2705 E 57th Ave address.

Also discussing this with a lawyer starting tomorrow, would like to learn about people's experiences in similar cases and how it played out for them.

Get a really, really good lawyer that specializes in these types of cases. I'd suggest you're in for a tough fight.
-October 1/2023 to October 9/2024 is 375 days (1 year 8 days)
-you confirm being in a serious relationship (despite being refused in 2021 for common law) since 2019. The prior common law application will likely work against your argument you weren't common law when you made your landing.
-Unless she had a place of her own (different address, rent receipts, separate utilities, or a leasing agreement), based on historical applications and available information, IRCC has likely judged the situation correctly and the onus will be on you to prove otherwise.

 

[fatherofabarber]

Thanks for replying!

Yes, definitely. Would transparently confirm with our lawyer tomorrow if they have experience handling cases like ours.

I'd like to add that SOWP application was outland, and between 2020/08 to 2021/12 (right before reunification at the student basement) we were in a long distance relationship. When she came back to Canada, we dated but did not live like common-law partners until moving into our own place in 2023/10

- Sponsor's declaration was made on September 17th to be exact.
- The refusal in 2021 was due to IRCC not being satisfied of our CLP despite of a 1 year lease agreement along with other proof submitted under the guidance of a RCIC.
- Due to the prior refusal, we were cautious about claiming common-law partnership due to the non-conjugal nature of our housing arrangement, and were also recommended so by our RCIC on day of declaration.
- She did not have a place of her own and resided in the same student basement informally.
- Except the one SOWP application, all our applications to IRCC were submitted as "single" after the refusal.

 

[armoured]

Get a really, really good lawyer that specializes in these types of cases. I'd suggest you're in for a tough fight.
-October 1/2023 to October 9/2024 is 375 days (1 year 8 days)
-you confirm being in a serious relationship (despite being refused in 2021 for common law) since 2019. The prior common law application will likely work against your argument you weren't common law when you made your landing.
-Unless she had a place of her own (different address, rent receipts, separate utilities, or a leasing agreement), based on historical applications and available information, IRCC has likely judged the situation correctly and the onus will be on you to prove otherwise.

I fully agree with Buletruck. You have been in a relationship (self-admitted) since 2019, and residing continuously together since December 2021. AND solely together in a separate place for over 12 months (Oct1, 23 to Oct x, 24) before becoming a PR. Unlike many, you clearly were AWARE of the common law possibility, since you submitted some kind of common law app in 2021 (no reasonable argument can be made that you were completely unaware - which is usually a losing argument anyway, AFAIK). Your counter about 'we did not live like common law partners' is weak - you were residing together, period.

Game over. There is no room for argumentation otherwise (IMO). Your partner should find ways to qualify for PR on their own.

And the case seems such a lock (against you) that you should be aware that chances of success in some kind of appeal / legal challenge are low and likely to be extremely costly and lengthy to even attempt to challenge.

[Editadd: you can (indeed must) of course respond to the PFL with whatever / best arguments and evidence you can muster, with or without legal assistance. In terms of high costs and long waits - I'm referring primarily to subsequent legal challenges, and I'm not an expert in the basic appeals process (probably simple appeal can be done without legal assistance but chances of success usually low.) Court challenges very expensive and lengthy.]

- Due to the prior refusal, we were cautious about claiming common-law partnership due to the non-conjugal nature of our housing arrangement, and were also recommended so by our RCIC on day of declaration. ... The household was non-conjugal: no joint lease, bank accounts, tax filings, or exclusive living space.

In my opinion, you misapprehend the nature of what 'non-conjugal' means here. Conjugal, at heart, means romantic/sexual. Other evidence (or lack of same) of joint household/shared expenses are supportive of it being a true/serious conjugal relationship, but are not determinative (their absence makes it more difficult to demonstrate it was conjugal, but the converse is not true - their absence certainly does not prove it was not conjugal). The fact that it was a real relationship (conjugal) is shown already by your previous application - you can't on the one hand apply for common law and then argue years later it wasn't a real relationship.*

Now you say your RCIC provided this advice - that is (IMO) a deeply shocking oversight and close to complete incompetence, and this consultant should be reported / you must complain. I doubt this will provide much comfort to you.

You should of course see a lawyer and to the extent there is a legal case to be made, perhaps the lawyer can find a leg based on this poor counsel - or get your money back / some compensation for this gross incompetence. (My guess is that this will be difficult, too - legal limitations in contract or lack of evidence).

Good luck though. Although I think this case is cut and dry, I think the (effective) lifetime ban on sponsoring is overly harsh. But it appears to be the current stance taken by IRCC.

* The 'law' about conjugal / common law and etc is considerably more complex than me boiling it down (and as far as I can tell, hampered by difficulties of evidence, e.g. proof of sex/'romance', and no firm requirement/definition of either that can be relied upon), and it depends on context (among other things, IRCC's statutes and regs about what they recognise as 'common law' are not identical to those in common law/in the provinces, and since it's their own definition, it's not even 'common law' per se). That said, I'm not here to have a legal argument and I am not a lawyer. The point is, I don't think those finer, abstruse points of law/common law etc are likely to be argued here - your case seems quite cut and dry, to me, and I would be apprehensive that you could waste a lot of money arguing the finer points (unsuccessfully).

 

[scylla]

Thanks for replying!

Yes, definitely. Would transparently confirm with our lawyer tomorrow if they have experience handling cases like ours.

I'd like to add that SOWP application was outland, and between 2020/08 to 2021/12 (right before reunification at the student basement) we were in a long distance relationship. When she came back to Canada, we dated but did not live like common-law partners until moving into our own place in 2023/10

- Sponsor's declaration was made on September 17th to be exact.
- The refusal in 2021 was due to IRCC not being satisfied of our CLP despite of a 1 year lease agreement along with other proof submitted under the guidance of a RCIC.
- Due to the prior refusal, we were cautious about claiming common-law partnership due to the non-conjugal nature of our housing arrangement, and were also recommended so by our RCIC on day of declaration.
- She did not have a place of her own and resided in the same student basement informally.
- Except the one SOWP application, all our applications to IRCC were submitted as "single" after the refusal.

You definitely need a very good immigration lawyer.