Renew visitor status to become Common in Law

[Lestad_01]

Hi,

I’m in a long distance relationship since 2021. We have been seeing each other here in canada and outside os canada all this time. Now we want to live in cana for 12 month to apply under Common in Law sponsorship.

1- As my partner has visitor visa (eta), can we go out of canada together to renew her status every 4-5 months for short period of time without issues until we hit the 12 month and be able to apply?

2- I know that we can extend her status while in canada. Is it possible to request the extension confessing the reason is to become common in law? Or is there a risk of being refused because of that?

3- if we travel together to renew her visitor status. Do that time we are together outside of canada count as “time together” for common in law right? Want to make sure that going outside of canada don’t break the 12 month mark.

 

[YVR123]

Hi,

I’m in a long distance relationship since 2021. We have been seeing each other here in canada and outside os canada all this time. Now we want to live in cana for 12 month to apply under Common in Law sponsorship.

1- As my partner has visitor visa (eta), can we go out of canada together to renew her status every 4-5 months for short period of time without issues until we hit the 12 month and be able to apply?

2- I know that we can extend her status while in canada. Is it possible to request the extension confessing the reason is to become common in law? Or is there a risk of being refused because of that?

3- if we travel together to renew her visitor status. Do that time we are together outside of canada count as “time together” for common in law right? Want to make sure that going outside of canada don’t break the 12 month mark.

1) it's possible to "reset" the 6 months stay but it's also possible that the re-entry could be refused.
2) It is possible to put down trying to estiablish common law relationship as reason. And yes, it's possible that any visitor extension could be refused.
3) The time spent outside together can be counted as time together. Make sure that you keep proof of same address as well.

 

[Naturgrl]

What will your partner do for a year in Canada? Also, know it is a personal choice but would not it be easier to get married rather than wait a year and then apply for spousal sponsorship (if that is the plan).

 

[armoured]

2) It is possible to put down trying to estiablish common law relationship as reason. And yes, it's possible that any visitor extension could be refused.

While I agree this is true, my understanding - which could be mistaken - is that extensions for this reason are not refused that often (or, put differently, not without some other good reason for refusal).

Someone else noted that getting married before requesting extension is less risky. I think this is likely true.

I'd also underline: most visitors (TRV with no work permissions) are not allowed to work. Someone who is married and applies can apply for an open work permit. Which may take a while to process, but still should be a lot faster than wait-for-common-law approach in almsot any scenario.

 

[YVR123]

note. none of my answer point to the chance or percentage. The question was if there's a risk. There's always a risk.

 

[Lestad_01]

What will your partner do for a year in Canada? Also, know it is a personal choice but would not it be easier to get married rather than wait a year and then apply for spousal sponsorship (if that is the plan).

My partner will be living with me. Not working. I will be providing for both. I don’t want to get marry for now. That’s why I want to go to the Common in Law route for now.

 

[Lestad_01]

1) it's possible to "reset" the 6 months stay but it's also possible that the re-entry could be refused.
2) It is possible to put down trying to estiablish common law relationship as reason. And yes, it's possible that any visitor extension could be refused.
3) The time spent outside together can be counted as time together. Make sure that you keep proof of same address as well.

It seems that it’s the same risk going outside of canada to reset the visitor time as requesting an extension while im canada. They can refuse it. I’m just concerned of putting my partner in a position where I’m allowed to enter and my partner don’t and worst, put at risk the ability to seeing each other in canada as we do now.

 

[armoured]

note. none of my answer point to the chance or percentage. The question was if there's a risk. There's always a risk.

Quite right, you did not. My point was that I believe the risk is higher for departing Canada and returning compared to remaining in Canada and requesting extension. I cannot say for certain that this is true.

My partner will be living with me. Not working. I will be providing for both. I don’t want to get marry for now. That’s why I want to go to the Common in Law route for now.

The question is why you do not wish to get married. It's not irrelevant to how IRCC may approach.

It is, ultimately, up to you and your partner. But I believe IRCC can infer whatever they wish from the situation.

It seems that it’s the same risk going outside of canada to reset the visitor time as requesting an extension while im canada. They can refuse it. I’m just concerned of putting my partner in a position where I’m allowed to enter and my partner don’t and worst, put at risk the ability to seeing each other in canada as we do now.

I don't believe your "it seems" is true at all, although I do not have specific data.

I'd also note: the 'risk' you identify is not symmetrically shared by you and your partner, i.e. your partner faces greater risks of consequences of not being able to remain in the place he/she believes they are living (in good faith) and being unexpectedly refused entry, for example.

I can't influence what your partner thinks or knows about this, but if I'm right: he/she is bearing the risk of you not being married (and consequences such as how/when to apply) and you are not. If there are children involved, the more so.

 

[Naturgrl]

Since partner will not be working and cannot access health care services then make sure partner has travel/health insurance for at least a year (and if applying for PR then add another year to be safe).

 

[Lestad_01]

Quite right, you did not. My point was that I believe the risk is higher for departing Canada and returning compared to remaining in Canada and requesting extension. I cannot say for certain that this is true.



The question is why you do not wish to get married. It's not irrelevant to how IRCC may approach.

It is, ultimately, up to you and your partner. But I believe IRCC can infer whatever they wish from the situation.



I don't believe your "it seems" is true at all, although I do not have specific data.

I'd also note: the 'risk' you identify is not symmetrically shared by you and your partner, i.e. your partner faces greater risks of consequences of not being able to remain in the place he/she believes they are living (in good faith) and being unexpectedly refused entry, for example.

I can't influence what your partner thinks or knows about this, but if I'm right: he/she is bearing the risk of you not being married (and consequences such as how/when to apply) and you are not. If there are children involved, the more so.

I disagree with you. There no specific “why”. We just want to live together for a few years before getting married. That’s why we are doing the common in law route. For something that route exist.

Of course. The risk for my parter is higher. That’s why I want to make sure it’s possible. Live together is what we want and that’s the only path to the PR for my partner. We are a genuine relationship so I’m not concerned to answer questions at the border or so. Just want to avoid putting her at risk as you said,, she will be leaving her life in her country to come here.

 

[Naturgrl]

I disagree with you. There no specific “why”. We just want to live together for a few years before getting married. That’s why we are doing the common in law route. For something that route exist.

Of course. The risk for my parter is higher. That’s why I want to make sure it’s possible. Live together is what we want and that’s the only path to the PR for my partner. We are a genuine relationship so I’m not concerned to answer questions at the border or so. Just want to avoid putting her at risk as you said,, she will be leaving her life in her country to come here.

I wish you all the best. She just has to be aware that she cannot work, and will not be able to work in Canada for guessing at least 18 months. The risk for the extension or reentering can be that she must show that she has the funds to be in Canada. Not your funds, hers. So if she has no income then she should be entering with funds to support her stay. And get health insurance. This will not cover general care but emergencies. If she has any health issues, she may pay out of pocket.

 

[Ponga]

Hi,

I’m in a long distance relationship since 2021. We have been seeing each other here in canada and outside os canada all this time. Now we want to live in cana for 12 month to apply under Common in Law sponsorship.

1- As my partner has visitor visa (eta), can we go out of canada together to renew her status every 4-5 months for short period of time without issues until we hit the 12 month and be able to apply?

2- I know that we can extend her status while in canada. Is it possible to request the extension confessing the reason is to become common in law? Or is there a risk of being refused because of that?

3- if we travel together to renew her visitor status. Do that time we are together outside of canada count as “time together” for common in law right? Want to make sure that going outside of canada don’t break the 12 month mark.

Two words come to mind: Dual Intent.

Have a read through the information, here:https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/visitors/dual-intent-applicants.html

[from the article]
Having 2 intents (initially for temporary residence and eventually for permanent residence) is legitimate.

That's potentially good news for your [hopefully] soon to be common-law partner (not common in law).

She MUST maintain her ties back home and have strong evidence that she is NOT moving to Canada now. Having things that are usually associated with where someone actually lives will all work to her advantage. Where will she keep all of her belongings while `visiting' you in Canada? Can she use that location as her address while visiting you? If so, she should obviously have at least some `stuff' at that address, right?

As mentioned by others, she will possibly need to have some sort of coverage for medical in the event that she needs to see a doctor. Part of the concerns that a CBSA officer may have is that she will not be a burden to Canada in the event of an emergency.

Good luck!

 

[Lestad_01]

Since partner will not be working and cannot access health care services then make sure partner has travel/health insurance for at least a year (and if applying for PR then add another year to be safe).

Two words come to mind: Dual Intent.

Have a read through the information, here:https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/visitors/dual-intent-applicants.html

[from the article]
Having 2 intents (initially for temporary residence and eventually for permanent residence) is legitimate.

That's potentially good news for your [hopefully] soon to be common-law partner (not common in law).

She MUST maintain her ties back home and have strong evidence that she is NOT moving to Canada now. Having things that are usually associated with where someone actually lives will all work to her advantage. Where will she keep all of her belongings while `visiting' you in Canada? Can she use that location as her address while visiting you? If so, she should obviously have at least some `stuff' at that address, right?

As mentioned by others, she will possibly need to have some sort of coverage for medical in the event that she needs to see a doctor. Part of the concerns that a CBSA officer may have is that she will not be a burden to Canada in the event of an emergency.

Good luck!

Thank you!

 

[armoured]

I disagree with you. There no specific “why”. We just want to live together for a few years before getting married. That’s why we are doing the common in law route.

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).

Of course. The risk for my parter is higher. That’s why I want to make sure it’s possible. Live together is what we want and that’s the only path to the PR for my partner. We are a genuine relationship so I’m not concerned to answer questions at the border or so. Just want to avoid putting her at risk as you said,, she will be leaving her life in her country to come here.

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.

 

[Lestad_01]

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.

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

Thanks anyways for the info.