Choosing a lawyer for applying for PR

[iarblue]

well you dont qualify for common law,you dont qualify for conjucal,so unless you plan on living with eachother for one year before you apply,and you guys are really thiking of getting married,then you should get married with family and friends and getting married in the US is perfectly legal.
Getiing married just gives you a better chance,collect all your evidence.
And getting a lawyer?keep your money the app is information that you have to dig up and get done all the lawyer is going to do is enter it in on the app for you for $2000 i think you can enter it with a $1.00 pen lol.
Everyone here will guide you through the whole process on here is a great bunch who are going through what you will be going through good luck and all the best.

 

[ariell]

Oh we plan to marry, have for a long time.

Ok, well then I think you need to decide what you want to do when. You said just a few posts above that you didn't "intend to get married just yet". If you are planning to marry, then do it now and then apply asap to sponsor her as your spouse. Otherwise, you don't have alot of other options immigration-wise, though as I said she can come to visit for up to 6 months.

 

[canadianwoman]

If you are planning to marry, the visa officer will reject a common law PR application. Conjugal is for people who can't get married, not those who are postponing marriage for some reason.

 

[Staceybru]

If you are planning to marry, the visa officer will reject a common law PR application. Conjugal is for people who can't get married, not those who are postponing marriage for some reason.

So you're telling me I can't say I plan in the future to marry my common law partner down the road on my application or they will refuse my application?

 

[toby]

I second those who advise you to do it yourself. If you could know in advance that the lawyer is a good one, then maybe, but you can't know.

ANd even if you hire a lawyer, you still have most of the work to do.

 

[Jeff]

Well thank you very much for the input. Will definitely read over the site more and download the forms and take a look!

 

[canadianwoman]

So you're telling me I can't say I plan in the future to marry my common law partner down the road on my application or they will refuse my application?

If you admit it, the visa officer will consider you a fiance, not a common-law spouse. The common-law category is not for people who are trying out their relationship to see if it will work as a precursor to marriage.
You don't fit common law anyway, because you need to have lived together for a year, but if you do live together for a year, and then apply common law, don't make any mention of future wedding plans.

 

[fibud]

If you admit it, the visa officer will consider you a fiance, not a common-law spouse. The common-law category is not for people who are trying out their relationship to see if it will work as a precursor to marriage.
You don't fit common law anyway, because you need to have lived together for a year, but if you do live together for a year, and then apply common law, don't make any mention of future wedding plans.

it really depends how you portray your relationship and the situation regarding plans to marry in the future vs. being engaged. my partner and i have lived together for 3 years and both wear promise rings...we have family in several different countries around the world (my parents in Canada, his dad and extended family in Brazil, his mom in Portugal, his brother and extended family in Hong Kong, my sister in Ivory Coast, my other sister and some extended family in Australia and his half brother in Japan). we are both still figuring out our careers as recent graduates and do not have the money to have the type of wedding we both really want to have, involving both of our families. we both explained this in our applications and supporting letters and we have received initial approval and an interview waiver no questions asked.

as for hiring a lawyer...it is completely a personal choice. there is no need really from the sounds of your case, but if you are more comfortable having someone who knows and understands all the immigration laws and have the means to hire one, just make sure you do your research on the firm you hire. ask them how they assist, how involved the lawyer is vs. his advisors, if he has a previous client who would recommend their office etc. etc. and make sure to review their contract carefully and be clear on the payment information as some will have extra charges just to ask questions where others will not...

gl!

 

[rjessome]

If you admit it, the visa officer will consider you a fiance, not a common-law spouse. The common-law category is not for people who are trying out their relationship to see if it will work as a precursor to marriage.

Not true. As long as you meet the criteria of common law (living together in a conjugal relationship for 12 consecutive months) you can apply as common-law whether you are planning to marry or not.

 

[iarblue]

here let me modify my post.You do not need a plan to marry.If you want to go common law then you need to prove to immigration without a doubt you are in a serious relationship.

 

[toby]

Unless the Law has changed in the last 5 years, there is a big difference between a common-law relationship and a marriage. Top of the mind: common-law partners must live together for 3 years before each partner acquires rights to "common assets" in the event of a divorce. Married partners acquire instant rights.

I know, when you're planning a marriage, you don't/won't think of divorce. But if it should occur, a common-law breakup (less than 3 years together) is much simpler, without the need to hire lawyers to fight over the assets (and if you weren't fighting before going to a lawyer, you almost certainly will be afterward. Lawyers are good at their jobs: fomenting discord to run up their billable hours.)

Accordingly, I suspect that Immigration looks on a legal marriage (and the asset commitment it brings) as being a more serious demonstration of a relationship than a common-law relationship. But others may have a more informed opinion on this point.

Assuming that marriage makes a Residency Application go more smoothly than a common-law application, I agree with those who say that if you are contemplating getting married anyway, why not do it soon, and make the Residency Application go more smoothly?

 

[MexiCana]

Unless the Law has changed in the last 5 years, there is a big difference between a common-law relationship and a marriage. Top of the mind: common-law partners must live together for 3 years before each partner acquires rights to "common assets" in the event of a divorce. Married partners acquire instant rights.

You don't ever acquire rights to "common assets;" at least not in any of the jurisdictions I've practiced law in. There has been Supreme Court jurisprudence very clearly stating that there's no right to a division of net family property outside of marriage -if the parties want those benefits, they need to opt in by getting married. In Ontario, after three years you are considered common law for the purposes of the Family Law Act but that only means you can make a claim for spousal support. If you want a right to division of net family property and to occupy the matrimonial home, etc. you need to be married. Many people misunderstand this and don't marry thinking that they have a right to half of the family property as of right after a certain period, but they do not.* This is a dangerous and costly mistake. If you live in Ontario check out the online pamphlet on Common Law at Community Legal Education Ontario. www.cleo.on.ca.


*Although it is possible in some instances to be granted a share of property through constructive trusts and the like, such things are NOT a sure thing.

 

[MexiCana]

The best way to find a lawyer is to get referred to one either from someone you personally know who used that lawyer or a referral from another lawyer or someone whose judgment you trust who is familiar with the lawyer's work. Most lawyers have a list of lawyers outside their practice area whom they regularly refer clients to and they do that because they trust that they do good work.

 

[iarblue]

Even with a lawyer he still does not qualify.You can have ten lawyers they are not going to get you aproved if you have not lived with eachother for a year.A lawyer can not change the immigration laws for Common Law.
They say you must live with eachother for a year before you can apply for Common Law.
So getting a lawyer is going to be a waste of money.
And stating your planning on getting married,in the future is totally up to you.There are many reasons why someone cant get married.Its your personal choice.

 

[toby]

You don't ever acquire rights to "common assets;" at least not in any of the jurisdictions I've practiced law in. There has been Supreme Court jurisprudence very clearly stating that there's no right to a division of net family property outside of marriage -if the parties want those benefits, they need to opt in by getting married. In Ontario, after three years you are considered common law for the purposes of the Family Law Act but that only means you can make a claim for spousal support. If you want a right to division of net family property and to occupy the matrimonial home, etc. you need to be married. Many people misunderstand this and don't marry thinking that they have a right to half of the family property as of right after a certain period, but they do not.* This is a dangerous and costly mistake. If you live in Ontario check out the online pamphlet on Common Law at Community Legal Education Ontario. www.cleo.on.ca.

Here is a question that has intrigued me for many years. Where two married people divorce, does each spouse automatically get half the matrimonial home? I have heard two contradictory opinions about this scenario.

The husband had more assets at marriage, and owned the home where hey lived together throughout the marriage. During the marriage, the home increased in value a bit, but his large stock portfolio declined seriously, so that his total assets at the end of the marriage were lower than at the beginning.

Opinion #1 says that there is no "common property" to divide, since there was no net increase in value.

Opinion #2 says that even if the husband's total assets declined, the house is a separate consideration, and the wife gets half no matter what happened to the husband's total assets.

Anyone know the truth?