Renew visitor status to become Common in Law

[armoured]

Again, common in law partner exist exactly for people in a “married- like” relationship but for any reason, they don’t want to marry.

Again, that does not render the choice to not get married free of consequences and costs.

 

[Ponga]

It's fine for you to disagree. From one perspective, the reason common law exists is that it is a 'marriage-like' relationship. In my opinion, it is contradictory to say 'we are ready to be common law but not ready to be married' (married but not married? Fully committed but, ummmm, not really?). That is, given the context here, in which it substantially increases risks and costs to the couple (such as risk of not being readmitted to Canada, and cost of not having even the option to work).



It is possible it will work. It is also possible it will not work. You are putting her at risk. Reasonable people can disagree on the extent of the risk and willingness to bear that risk. I think the risk is substantially lower if your partner does not leave and re-enter.

I see the 'dual intent' issue has come up. I warn, as I do frequently here, that 'dual intent' is not a magic wand wielded by those who want to come here. While it is not presumptively illegitimate to want to enter with two intentions, neither does it make it illegitimate for CBSA / IRCC to refuse entry to someone with 'dual intent.' The difference is only in that they cannot assume (presume) that one intent (eg interest / desire to become a PR) automatically renders the other intent (to visit) illegitimate.

Or in much more simple rephrasing: when they refuse someone entry, they can't just say "this person is being untruthful when they say they want to enter as a temporary resident because they intend to apply to become a PR." They have to take an extra three seconds and write "I am not satisfied they will leave when required because" ... [other reasons like 'insufficient ties to home country.]

A cynic might say 'dual intent' just gives them instructions on how to write a refusal that won't be overturned on appeal / in the courts.

Anyway, good luck. I think the safer approach in your (you + partner) case is to get married, and 'dual intent' does not remove the underlying issue. But it is up to you and your partner.

Pretty bold statement, IMHO. Who is anyone to say whether or not the OP and their partner is NOT fully committed, just because they have made the conscious decision to NOT get married...but to be fully committed to each other in the way that works best for them.

Also, when I posted the link regarding the Dual Intent info, did that imply that it was any sort of a `magic wand'? No. Just providing information that others in their position have benefited from.

 

[armoured]

Pretty bold statement, IMHO. Who is anyone to say whether or not the OP and their partner is NOT fully committed, just because they have made the conscious decision to NOT get married...but to be fully committed to each other in the way that works best for them.

In this case, me - because as I believe I said, it's my opinion. If I wasn't clear before that this was my opinion - well, this is my opinion.

That said, my opinion is reinforced by the way the OP stated it, which was "I don’t want to get marry for now. That’s why I want to go to the Common in Law route for now."

My opinion is that this is not what I would call a phrasing or a statement that indicates full commitment. My opinion is that "I don't want to get marry for now" means "I'm not ready", or "I want some of the benefits of marriage but not all of the rest." (Or the phrasing I used above)

Lots of reasons people can do common law that do or would indicate full commitment, or indeed have spent lots of time / years / have kids / etc and/or also have barriers to marriage. (I was common law for several years for just such a reason).

There are cases where marriage - being a civil arrangement 'anointed' by the state with specific legal meanings - is also the answer to other legal problems, including immigration. Or put differently, when there's a very good reason to get married, and you don't wish to yet, well, I can draw the inferences I like.

Again, my opinion. Others can think/do what they like.

Also, when I posted the link regarding the Dual Intent info, did that imply that it was any sort of a `magic wand'? No. Just providing information that others in their position have benefited from.

My reference to your post was not a criticism of your post. It was a warning that many, IMO, seem to interpret dual intent out of context to believe it is a magic wand of sorts, "dual intent, dual intent, let me in!", not a statement that you think that. Chill.