Yep, I understand that. However none of these are immigration barriers. For conjugal, immigration is looking for immigration barriers.
Conjugal Relationship Eligibility/Discussion
- Thread starter MDEVGAN
- Start date
I disagree - at least, it does not seem to be common for IRCC to expect Canadian sponsors (PR or citizen) to leave Canada in order to get common law status in order to then return to Canada. I'm not saying there haven't been cases, but that's frankly an absurd standard - becuase the sponsor can (rightly) say that can't do so because of work etc, or own immigration status (if a PR) - and would be ripe for appeal. (I don't recall seeing a case like this) [Note of course there is an immigration barrier, that the non-Canadian has been denied a visa]
But this case has a different weakness: that the only constraint is actually getting a divorce, which is, it seems, in process - there's nothing but the sponsor's claim that it's likely to be 'drawn out' (meaning, I presume, contested and complex). It seems lawyers have also said that's a very weak point and likeliy/possibly a reason for rejection.
The PA has been refused a TRV; that is an immigration barrier. Don't believe IRCC would require sponsor to leave Canada for more than a year as a basis for refusal.
Yes, but @scylla wan't referring to that in their reply to the OP. The reasons that were listed were NOT immigration barriers, rather things that would make it difficult, but not impossible.
Not sure I understand your point. There is an immigration barrier, as I pointed out - the sponsoree has been denied a visa. The points raised by OP, to wit, cannot leave Canada for a year just to get common law status (the reasons listed) are supporting points as to why the immigration barrier is salient and real.
If not, virtually any potential conjugal case could be thrown out on the loose grounds that "well, the sponsor could just go and live there."
Note, the comparison to a couple that wishes to get married is - generally - the sponsor can travel to the other's country and ... marry them. Or to a third country. Maybe takes a week, a month. Doesn't require the sponsor to move to a different country, change jobs, establish a new household, and drop all of their other family/social commitments in Canada. That's an unrealistic and - dare I say it - discriminatory requirement.
What I don't see in this case is a serious legal impediment to marriage - apart from needing to get a divorce, which is in process in Canada and may take a year or two (or less). It's not forbidden, impossible, or so lengthy that tantamount to impossible.
It's a very big barrier but it is not an immigration barrier, which is the language specified by IRCC for conjugal. The OP faces no immigration barriers to living in their country of origin / citizenship. The barriers faced by the OP are personal, financial, employment, etc.
Anyway, I still think the OP has a decent case for conjugal. It would be much more iron clad if the partner was living in a coutry where the OP does not have citizenship and can't easily live for a year (i.e. if the OP did in fact face real immigration barriers).
As above, I noted the spouse-applicant faces the immigration barrier. Does the conjugal require that both the applicant and sponsor face an immigration barrier? Can you show me that text?
And to repeat: the issue is that it would be absurd to require a Canadian (citizen or PR) [note for a PR more than impractical due to resdiency obligation) to move abroad with all of the other issues ... in order to qualify to move back to Canada.
Is this an absolutely impermeable barrier? Probably not. I don't believe that is the test that is required to be met.
I overall agree with the exception of the legal issue, that there's actually no barrier to divorce and re-marriage, just an inconvenience of time. If it were certain to be a five year process, the argument would be stronger - but since in most Canadian provinces it can be much shorter, I suspect the advice of lawyers is probably correct that it may not be successful for this reason, the legal barrier isn't really demonstrated.
I think you certainly have an argument to try for conjugal. Whether it's enough to be approved, I can't say.
OP is internet lingo for original poster (person who started the thread), meaning you.