American boyfriend visiting = common-law? 6 months

[jascampy]

Hi! I am currently in a long distance relationship with my American boyfriend (I am a Canadian citizen), and he has been visiting me here in Canada. I want to sponsor him, but obviously we cannot do common-law since it is hard for us to "live together" for 12 months straight with him just visiting me since there is a 6 month cap.

I have 2 questions that I would love if anyone can answer:
1) If he stayed here for 6 months, then applies to extend his visitor visa for another 6 months so we be in common-law relationship would that work? or would immigration not accept that? (his family sends him money to support him while he is visiting here)

2) If he was here visiting me in Canada for 3 months, then left for a month to America and is now back in Canada. Does the 6 months restart? or does he just have 3 months remaining now?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!!!

 

[thatstupiddeer]

It needs to be 12 consecutive months to be considered common-law.

He certainly can come for six months, and then extend his stay for another six. That’s how it’s usually done, so long as he’s okay with not being able to work during that one year period.

This is pretty common, esp for couples where one of them is from a visa-exempt country. You’ll want to make sure to apply for the extension BEFORE the six months are up, though.

Once you have the application submitted, though, and have your AOR, he can apply for an Open Work Permit.

 

[YVR123]

1) is commonly done and is acceptable route to establish common law relationship.

 

[Ponga]

Hi! I am currently in a long distance relationship with my American boyfriend (I am a Canadian citizen), and he has been visiting me here in Canada. I want to sponsor him, but obviously we cannot do common-law since it is hard for us to "live together" for 12 months straight with him just visiting me since there is a 6 month cap.

I have 2 questions that I would love if anyone can answer:
1) If he stayed here for 6 months, then applies to extend his visitor visa for another 6 months so we be in common-law relationship would that work? or would immigration not accept that? (his family sends him money to support him while he is visiting here)

2) If he was here visiting me in Canada for 3 months, then left for a month to America and is now back in Canada. Does the 6 months restart? or does he just have 3 months remaining now?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!!!

Regarding 2):
As mentioned, it must be 365 days of continuous cohabiting together (anywhere in the world). Those 3 months no longer count.

The logical option is the first one, since CBSA officers (and IRCC) understand what Dual Intent is:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/visitors/dual-intent-applicants.html




The only other option would be to get married. You could then start the process almost immediately thereafter.

Some members here feel that if a person is willing to sponsor their `partner', they should at least consider the marriage option. Not sure that I fall into that group but just want to share the information. Keep in mind that a sponsor is financially responsible for the partner, or spouse, that they sponsor for 3 years, commencing on the day that the person lands and becomes a PR of Canada. If the relationship breaks down and the PR goes on social assistance, for example, the sponsor could be liable to repay the government.

Good luck!

 

[jascampy]

It needs to be 12 consecutive months to be considered common-law.

He certainly can come for six months, and then extend his stay for another six. That’s how it’s usually done, so long as he’s okay with not being able to work during that one year period.

This is pretty common, esp for couples where one of them is from a visa-exempt country. You’ll want to make sure to apply for the extension BEFORE the six months are up, though.

Once you have the application submitted, though, and have your AOR, he can apply for an Open Work Permit.

Thank you, however did the 6 months restart? or do we just have 3 months now to complete the extension? This is confusing.

 

[YVR123]

Thank you, however did the 6 months restart? or do we just have 3 months now to complete the extension? This is confusing.

Well your question has 2 parts:
1) yes. Every time he re-enter, he could stay in Canada for 6 months. And then he needs to extend his stay before 6 months since his last entry
2) yes. If he left for a month, then your common law continuous time starts again. If it's a few days or a week, it's likely fine to still considered as living continuously.

 

[armoured]

Thank you, however did the 6 months restart? or do we just have 3 months now to complete the extension? This is confusing.

Do you mean that he did, already, leave for a month? Then basically you should consider the clock to have re-started.

Apart from the discussions above a few minor points:
-If he is going to apply as common law and esp if inland, you should consider that there is some risk in leaving Canada during the period until he becomes a PR. CBSA could choose not to let him back into Canada as it appears his purpose is not just visiting Canada. That could break up your common law and be considered abandonment of PR inland app, depending on timing.
-As noted he'll have to survive without work and health insurance during this period. Also putting life on hold, really, while waiting to qualify.

@Ponga gently referred to those who think people in your situation - that is, trying to live together to meet common law test for PR - should at least consider getting married. I think that's an understatement, OF COURSE people actively undertaking steps to become common law should at minimum consider whether getting married makes sense. (To NOT do so is only to actively ignore outside information and alternatives).

I'll go further: given the tremendous cost in time, hassle, risk (health care amongst other), lack of ability to work hence cost in money, etc., there are those (and I am one) who think that getting married instead of imposing these large cumulative costs is the OBVIOUS better choice. If you're 'sure enough' to consider common law & sponsorship, you are 'sure enough' to get married - which I do not mean as a value judgment about marriage being superior, but as a practical point that if the partners are willing enough to make the investment in time, money, responsibility to qualify as common law and do sponsorship, they are in fact demonstrating they are 'sure enough' about one another. IMHO. (Which should not be surprising - the logic is that being in a common law relation is 'akin to' marriage in most respects (and why it's been termed a common-law marriage for ages even if there's technical quibbles about that terminology).

And if you're still reluctant, consider seriously whether your reasons NOT to get married are well thought out and/or if some of those reasons can be controlled / managed by other means (including things like prenups).

To be clear, I'm not a marriage fanatic, and I'm not religious - don't care about legal marriage at all, think common law perfectly fine for most people in most relationships. None of my business. But if getting married makes specific sense for a real couple in obtaining things like immigration status that are clearly in their collective interests as a couple, then I find most of the objections to marriage that I have heard don't stand up to any analysis at all.