Common law - vistor extension

[Jaafar hajj]

I repeat and admit that there are cases where common law can make sense. An obvious one is where marriage is not possible (incl an existing marriage that cannot be dissolved).

A case where someone says it's not possible is not the same as "it's complicated." Not possible or no other choice is actually not complicated.

(Allowing for the person being correct in their statement of impossibility anyway)

Well thank you for explanation but this is my stressful case hopefully getting well

 

[armoured]

Well thank you for explanation but this is my stressful case hopefully getting well

I do not understand your case or your posts on it, so good luck. You jumped into a thread on a different case that clearly differs from yours, so comments won't necessarily apply.

 

[rmtl]

I have explained this many times before but the test for common law is necessarily more demanding - with marriage the legal test is fulfilled and the relationship proof supplementary.

Common law - apart from the year potentially gained by applying married - the requirements for relationship proof are by definition higher because now they must fulfill and meet legal tests for common law definition. Lots of cases where those applying had longer waits and/or refused because of deficiencies or errors that would be addressed by marriage.

Hence - for immigration purposes, common law is by definition more complicated. Sometimes only a small amount, sometimes a lot. More complicated for those who apply with cohabitation only close to the 12 month minimum.

I could list other reasons or scenarios why. But again, your choice.

Thanks for your explanation and I agree, it is case by case, in our case marriage is a bit risky since my bf country doesn't allow that and can end up either killed or in preson (same sex marriage not allowed) so the safest option for him is the common law

 

[armoured]

Thanks for your explanation and I agree, it is case by case, in our case marriage is a bit risky since my bf country doesn't allow that and can end up either killed or in preson (same sex marriage not allowed) so the safest option for him is the common law

Sorry to hear that issue, that is a different situation than I had in mind. Only you and he can judge the relative risks and benefits, then. Your case would indeed be out of the scope of comments I made.

Now, Canada does not as a matter of course share eg info about marriage (no stamps in passports or anything like that), but it can't necessarily stop info from getting out - so still has to be your choice. I'd note though that aspects of being able to infer a person is in a common law relationship / by which sponsored may be equally 'visible' or possible to be inferred, so that doesn't guarantee safety.

Obvious other potential approach is to not travel to a country that would punish, imprison or kill you for your sexual preferences, or only as little as possible. But that may not be possible or realistic in all circumstances and I'm certainly not going to tell you what to do.

I would flag though: being married would at least provide more certainty of ability of your spouse to remain in Canada and get status more quickly. You'll have to balance the risks.

 

[Ponga]

I would flag though: being married would at least provide more certainty of ability of your spouse to remain in Canada and get status more quickly. You'll have to balance the risks.

How would that provide `more certainty of ability' to remain in Canada? As we all [should] know, a spouse to a Canadian PR or citizen really has no more rights to remain in Canada than a visitor does. Certainly no more than that of a common-law partner.

 

[rmtl]

Sorry to hear that issue, that is a different situation than I had in mind. Only you and he can judge the relative risks and benefits, then. Your case would indeed be out of the scope of comments I made.

Now, Canada does not as a matter of course share eg info about marriage (no stamps in passports or anything like that), but it can't necessarily stop info from getting out - so still has to be your choice. I'd note though that aspects of being able to infer a person is in a common law relationship / by which sponsored may be equally 'visible' or possible to be inferred, so that doesn't guarantee safety.

Obvious other potential approach is to not travel to a country that would punish, imprison or kill you for your sexual preferences, or only as little as possible. But that may not be possible or realistic in all circumstances and I'm certainly not going to tell you what to do.

I would flag though: being married would at least provide more certainty of ability of your spouse to remain in Canada and get status more quickly. You'll have to balance the risks.

Yes I don't want him to be in risk when he will back home.
Thanks, I understand that marriage is faster and make the process faster we were studying the whole situation and try to find the best option for us and for his safety.

 

[Ponga]

Please don't. I do not think evil. I do not think morally wrong. Nothing of the sort.

My belief is that most of the reasons some people prefer common law over marriage are profoundly wrong based on misapprehensions.

Evil, no. Misinformed - often yes.

Oh come on. Did you not see the `Lol' part?


Your view on this is crystal clear, IMHO:

But I repeat that my underlying position is: ain't ready to marry, ain't ready to common law. (In this case, in more than one sense)

 

[armoured]

How would that provide `more certainty of ability' to remain in Canada? As we all [should] know, a spouse to a Canadian PR or citizen really has no more rights to remain in Canada than a visitor does. Certainly no more than that of a common-law partner.

In practice ircc is less likely to move against an overstaying spouse who has a plan to apply.

And it is different now because the boyfriend is not common law. Yet.

And - say the boyfriend has to leave canada for some reason, and then cannot return (eg entry and or new trv refused).

Them, no way to become spouses (potentially) because marriage not allowed on home country.

No basis to apply for spousal. Scrutiny under conjugal to je expected, because they had opportunity to marry and did not. Etc. There are other scenarios.

Married status provides some - possibly considerable - certainty of ability to sponsor and remain in country.

Has to be weighed against home country risks (in this case) but vis a vis Canada and Canadian immigration, undoubtedly superior.

 

[armoured]

Oh come on. Did you not see the `Lol' part?


Your view on this is crystal clear, IMHO:

Sorry , still don't want my view on that reduced to some position that common law is evil, even joking.

And I'll grant my pithy "ain't ready to" comment ain't be applying to this circumstance. Considerable extra room for those dealing with murderous homophobic governments.

 

[rmtl]

In practice ircc is less likely to move against an overstaying spouse who has a plan to apply.

And it is different now because the boyfriend is not common law. Yet.

And - say the boyfriend has to leave canada for some reason, and then cannot return (eg entry and or new trv refused).

Them, no way to become spouses (potentially) because marriage not allowed on home country.

No basis to apply for spousal. Scrutiny under conjugal to je expected, because they had opportunity to marry and did not. Etc. There are other scenarios.

Married status provides some - possibly considerable - certainty of ability to sponsor and remain in country.

Has to be weighed against home country risks (in this case) but vis a vis Canada and Canadian immigration, undoubtedly superior.

The good thing that he has a multi years visa, I know it is not guarantee that if he left he can come back (can be denied entry) but it is still less likely.
As you said we have to weight the risk in both cases

 

[Ponga]

The good thing that he has a multi years visa, I know it is not guarantee that if he left he can come back (can be denied entry) but it is still less likely.
As you said we have to weight the risk in both cases

Now THAT should reduce the pressure to get married!

https://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=417&top=16
Multiple entry visa

While valid, a multiple entry visa will let you travel to Canada for six months at a time as many times as you want. It will be valid for up to 10 years or one month before your passport expires, whichever is shorter. You must arrive in Canada on or before the expiry date on your visa.

He would only be denied if deemed to be inadmissible, I believe.

 

[Ponga]

Sorry , still don't want my view on that reduced to some position that common law is evil, even joking.

And I'll grant my pithy "ain't ready to" comment ain't be applying to this circumstance. Considerable extra room for those dealing with murderous homophobic governments.

Fair enough. I apologize that your were offended.

 

[canuck78]

The good thing that he has a multi years visa, I know it is not guarantee that if he left he can come back (can be denied entry) but it is still less likely.
As you said we have to weight the risk in both cases

Would not leave if you are trying to establish common law. A multi-year visa is a false sense of security if your partner has minimal ties to their home country. In general if you specify that you are trying to qualify for common law and you have the funds to prove that your partner does not have to work while visiting Canada you have a decent chance of getting an extension. I would also include proof of your emergency travel medical insurance to show that if you have emergency that you won’t be a financial burden on your the healthcare system. If he leaves and is unable to return then you will have to start from zero. I would make sure to collect evidence that you live together from the start date of your common law period. Things like being on the same lease, copy of bills with each person’s name the date and same address starting from the start of the one year period. When you hit the one year mark you need to inform CRA so they can change your status to common law. That is additional evidence to submit when you apply for sponsorship. Would wait until a few days before your 6 months stay expires before applying for for an extension. It will take many months to process.

 

[armoured]

Fair enough. I apologize that your were offended.

Wasn't offended per se, just don't want others thinking my reasoning behind this is based on some kind of animus towards common law.

Common law's fine. But it's a civil status regulated by government, and so is marriage; if you have some reason to formalize it via marriage - and immigration is very much a reason to do so - most arguments about why you don't want to because you think it's different than marriage are dumb.

The worst argument of all being "we are ready to be common law but we are not ready to be married." That is not the case here, that's all.

 

[rmtl]

Would not leave if you are trying to establish common law. A multi-year visa is a false sense of security if your partner has minimal ties to their home country. In general if you specify that you are trying to qualify for common law and you have the funds to prove that your partner does not have to work while visiting Canada you have a decent chance of getting an extension. I would also include proof of your emergency travel medical insurance to show that if you have emergency that you won’t be a financial burden on your the healthcare system. If he leaves and is unable to return then you will have to start from zero. I would make sure to collect evidence that you live together from the start date of your common law period. Things like being on the same lease, copy of bills with each person’s name the date and same address starting from the start of the one year period. When you hit the one year mark you need to inform CRA so they can change your status to common law. That is additional evidence to submit when you apply for sponsorship. Would wait until a few days before your 6 months stay expires before applying for for an extension. It will take many months to process.

Thanks for the tips, we already started collecting evidence from the day he arrived, house insurance, sharing joined credit cards, photos, sharing expenses. Some we couldn't like same lease, my place is asking for credit check and since he is on a visitor visa can't be added but I have the emails communication with management to proof that we tried that too .

In the visitor extension, it says that you should apply before 30 days, is it ok to apply like a week or two before the expiry day?