living arrangemant urgent guys please!!!!!!!

[richie4U]

i only stayed with my husband three weeks at the hotel but the first week i was at my sisters place a building away from the hotel so i go to him in the morning and stay till 12 midnight as christains we are not suppose to spend night until we are legally married.when he was in nigeria, the question said living arrangement have you and your sponsor lived together?
i answer yes we stayed together at the hotel for two weeks after our wedding on the 10th of april 2010 as husband and wife because it means everything to us beacause of the love we have for each other it feels like forever, and that even if my husband wanted to stay longer he was on a visitor visa, and he has to return back to work at the end of his three weeks visit, and he only gets his vacation once in a year and i have not been able to get a visitor visa to visit him. and that the reason i consider that to be living together is that we are married lived as husband and wife for two weeks we are one. guys please am confused here, my appication is going in by monday i need to be sure about this question.

 

[bobshynoswife]

I think if you say 'yes' and then give that explanation, you'll be fine. My husband and I always stayed in the same hotel/flat when I visited, and even shared the same bed from the very beginning. We have spent a total of 55 nights together in the past 2 years, but I said "NO" to have you ever lived together. I interpreted that to mean for longer periods, not just a week or two visit.

Just a thought though, if he says he lived with you at the hotel for those weeks, wouldn't he have to put the hotel as his residence on his history forms? I don't know....I think either way you go is okay as long as you explain.

 

[scylla]

I think your reply to this question should be "no".

I agree with bobshynoswife's interpretation of this question. I think "living together" means living in a permanent accommodation (not a hotel).

 

[richie4U]

I think if you say 'yes' and then give that explanation, you'll be fine. My husband and I always stayed in the same hotel/flat when I visited, and even shared the same bed from the very beginning. We have spent a total of 55 nights together in the past 2 years, but I said "NO" to have you ever lived together. I interpreted that to mean for longer periods, not just a week or two visit.

Just a thought though, if he says he lived with you at the hotel for those weeks, wouldn't he have to put the hotel as his residence on his history forms? I don't know....I think either way you go is okay as long as you explain.

what if i said we stayed together for two weeks after our wedding and i dont consider that to be living together ,then what do you think bobshynowife.

 

[bobshynoswife]

I really don't think that your answer is wrong. If you have the explanation with it, they will read it and understand how you interpreted the question.

If i were you, i would just leave it as is. You make it clear that you stayed together in a hotel, and that you considered that living together, which may actually say more about your relationship.

 

[can_usa_97]

My husband and I spent 7 weeks together our first visit. He in the US for 2 1/2 and I in Canada for the remaining. I did not include this as time we spent living together. We were visiting each other. (we were married 3 weeks later and I used that date as the date we've lived together since, in fact we've spent all but 3-4 weeks only apart in almost 13 years).

However, if you explain your thought of thinking it might be OK. I don't think its' as though you 'lied' just interpreted it differently - and I would hope the IO would see.

 

[canadianwoman]

I have seen several appeal cases where this question was mentioned. Some people answered 'yes' they had lived together, and then explained that it was for 2 weeks at a hotel during their honeymoon. Others answered 'no' and said that though they had not lived together (taking that to mean a longer stay in a residence), they had stayed together for 2 weeks in a hotel during their honeymoon. And variations of these answers. In all cases the visa officer and the appeal judge had no problems with the answer. No one accused the applicant of lying or misrepresentation. It seems as if either answer was fine. So Richie4U, your first answer - with the explanation - will be fine.
I personally put 'no' for this question, and then explained that we had stayed together at hotels during my trips to Nigeria.
Since cohabitation is considered very good evidence of a genuine marriage, now I would be inclined to put 'yes'. Either is fine, though; just make sure to explain your situation and be very clear on how long the cohabitation was. Then the visa officer will not accuse you of trying to lie or hide anything.

 

[HoneyBird]

I indicated no for mine.

 

[BeShoo]

I was unsure about whether I should count short trips of 5 to 14 days as "living together" even if we were staying in each other's apartments (and each other's beds) during 95% of this time (the rest in hotels). I did decide from the beginning that I would claim we were "living together" during a stay of 25 days (almost a month), because I consider this a trial long-term cohabitation. However, after reading the following excerpt from an appeals case, I really think I should count all the times we have slept together and stayed together as periods of cohabitation, no matter how short.

In this passage from the panel's decision, they criticize the appellant for not indicating cohabitation during her 2-week trip, on the spousal questionnaire. She first met her spouse on Dec. 27, and married him 3 days later. The marriage was found to be not genuine. (Emphasis in what follows is mine.)

The appellant testified that she arrived in Haiti on December 27, 2006, and that she lived with the applicant until her departure on January 10, 2007. She was confronted with the spouse questionnaire, signed on March 12, 2007, which does not provide any date of cohabitation. She explained that she had not understood the question. During the interview, the applicant stated that the appellant left Haiti [translation] “three or four days after the marriage”, when she actually stayed in Haiti 11 days after the marriage. When confronted, the appellant stated that the immigration officer had made a mistake. The panel does not consider the explanations reasonable. This was the appellant’s first trip to Haiti to meet and marry the applicant and the only trip that she had taken at the time of the interview. The absence of any mention of a period of cohabitation on the form, combined with the applicant’s response at the interview about the number of days that the appellant stayed in Haiti after the marriage, lead the panel to believe that the spouses did not live together during that trip, as alleged by the appellant, and this undermines her credibility and the good faith of this marriage. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii84404/2009canlii84404.html

 

[can_usa_97]

Interesting BeShoo.

I think if you answer with an explanation for why you are answering how you are, your OK.

However, I think the weight of the rest of this case matters. It wasn't just that portion which weighed in the panels choice. That particular case indicates they met and married 3 days later however and then only 2 years later in the full case did she ever goto see her spouse again. There was a huge discrepancy in how they met and a year passed before they first talked on the phone/met. And it sounds like he had a failed sponsorship and THEN they were introduced. They knew little about each other when asked. There was a discrepancy in the # of people at the wedding, and why they weren't there as well as the photographic proof of it.

It's tricky.
Cohabitation : To live together in a sexual relationship, especially when not legally married.
live together: to dwell in the same house or flat;
dwell: make one's home or live in; "She resides officially in Iceland

 

[BeShoo]

I think if you answer with an explanation for why you are answering how you are, your OK.

I agree with this. As long as you explain what you mean by your answer, everything is fine either way.

However, I think the weight of the rest of this case matters. ...

Of course, the weight of the rest of this case matters. It matters a lot. That wasn't my point. My point is that it's to your advantage to be able to say you were cohabiting, despite the fact that you have principal residences in two different countries, and it seems in this case that the judge acually expected the questionnaire to indicate cohabitation, even during a two-week trip.

I never meant to suggest that answering this question in another way would make your case fail. There were a lot of serious problems and discrepencies this case, including the fact that the oral testimony conflicted in many ways with whatwas written on the questionnaire.

It's tricky.
Cohabitation : To live together in a sexual relationship, especially when not legally married.
live together: to dwell in the same house or flat;
dwell: make one's home or live in; "She resides officially in Iceland

It is entirely possible to cohabit without living under the same roof or to live under the same roof without cohabiting. See my post at http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/spousal-sponsorship-t46995.0.html;msg357760#msg357760 for more details.