Seeking Advice for Spousal Sponsorship with Less Than 2 Years in a Relationship

[Nedi27]

I'm reaching out to this wonderful community in the hopes of gaining some insight into a matter my partner and I are currently facing. We have been in a relationship for less than two years and are planning to apply for spousal sponsorship, intending to make an outland application.

By the time we submit our application, we intend to have already celebrated our 1st anniversary and married. However, we're uncertain of the potential challenges or issues we may face due to the relatively short duration of our relationship at the point of application.

We're seeking advice and insights from those who have been in a similar situation. Have any of you successfully navigated this process under similar circumstances? Are there specific considerations or challenges we should be preparing for?

Your shared experiences and any guidance could greatly aid us in making a well-informed decision. We immensely appreciate any input in advance.

 

[armoured]

I'm reaching out to this community in hopes of gaining some insights into a matter I'm currently facing. My partner and I have been in a relationship for less than two years and we're considering a spousal sponsorship.
However, we're not quite sure about the potential challenges or issues that may arise given the duration of our relationship. Does anyone have experience with such scenarios or any valuable advice that could help guide us through this process? Clearly understanding the implications could greatly aid us in making a well-informed decision.
Any input or shared personal experiences would be immensely appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Your questions are very general. I'd recommend downloading the application package, read te instructions, and start filling it out.

As for the specific info you gave: not enough info. The single biggest determinant that drives how the rest will be looked at, really, is whether you have been residing together or not. If you've been residing together for two years, for the most part will not be a difficult decision on the relationship side (for common law will need good evidence of that cohabitation being more than 12 months).

That doesnt mean you can't apply if you've less than two years. Just that other aspects will be somewhat different to demonstrate the relationship.

 

[Nedi27]

Your questions are very general. I'd recommend downloading the application package, read te instructions, and start filling it out.

As for the specific info you gave: not enough info. The single biggest determinant that drives how the rest will be looked at, really, is whether you have been residing together or not. If you've been residing together for two years, for the most part will not be a difficult decision on the relationship side (for common law will need good evidence of that cohabitation being more than 12 months).

That doesnt mean you can't apply if you've less than two years. Just that other aspects will be somewhat different to demonstrate the relationship.

Thank you for your reply. I realize my question may have been too general. Actually, I'm seeking to know if there are any successful couples here who had less than two years of relationship history at the time of their outland application. We are planning to get married this year and by the time we submit the application, it will be our 1st anniversary. Has anyone had a similar experience?

 

[MJSPARV]

There are many people who submit outland applications before two years of marriage. Follow the instructions for the additional relationship proofs. Presumably you’ve been living together since marriage? Did you generally follow the customs of your culture/religion for dating/engagement/marriage? How much time did you spend together before marriage (not necessarily living together but trips to see each other etc)?

Personally, I was sponsored in 2021 by my husband when we were just shy of our two year anniversary and my PR took about 7-8 months.

 

[canuck78]

Assume you are a citizen? You will also have to prove that you will relocate to Canada after PR is approved. Assume you also have the funds to show you can support your family without government help when you move back to Canada.

 

[Nedi27]

Another question for Catholic couples here: I know that, if possible, it's best to have a church wedding, but will it look bad if we just have a civil wedding?

 

[canuck78]

Another question for Catholic couples here: I know that, if possible, it's best to have a church wedding, but will it look bad if we just have a civil wedding?

Always best to have a ceremony that is consistent with your religion or culture. You can have a small ceremony in a church. Also best if you have some family remember attend the wedding and if not possible at least some friends. If family does not attend I would explain why you are not having a wedding with family present. If you do have a civil wedding I would explain why you did n
It have a catholic wedding if you are practicing Catholics.

 

[armoured]

Another question for Catholic couples here: I know that, if possible, it's best to have a church wedding, but will it look bad if we just have a civil wedding?

Sorry, the above response is silly. Unless you're in a place where a church wedding is an absolute cultural requirement, I daresay a civil wedding is fine in most countries where catholics reside. It's not an arranged marriage. If IRCC asks why not a church wedding - you're not very religious and didn't want one.

A church wedding might be better - but a civil one is fine (in many primarily Catholic countries a civil wedding is a requirement anyway, as the religious ones don't have legal force). Agree that it's best to have at least some family or friends in attendance and some sort of celebration with attendees - does not have to be huge.

 

[MJSPARV]

Sorry, the above response is silly. Unless you're in a place where a church wedding is an absolute cultural requirement, I daresay a civil wedding is fine in most countries where catholics reside. It's not an arranged marriage. If IRCC asks why not a church wedding - you're not very religious and didn't want one.

A church wedding might be better - but a civil one is fine (in many primarily Catholic countries a civil wedding is a requirement anyway, as the religious ones don't have legal force). Agree that it's best to have at least some family or friends in attendance and some sort of celebration with attendees - does not have to be huge.

I think it’s a bit nuanced here. If you’re nominally Catholic and aren’t really practicing then having just a civil wedding is fine. But if you’re practicing Catholics and your relationship history somehow reflects that (met at church or on a catholic dating website, didn’t live together before marriage for religious reasons, etc) then I think having only a civil wedding could be a potential red flag that you didn’t follow your customs and that the civil wedding is just for convenience/to get the immigration paperwork going.

 

[armoured]

I think it’s a bit nuanced here. If you’re nominally Catholic and aren’t really practicing then having just a civil wedding is fine. But if you’re practicing Catholics and your relationship history somehow reflects that (met at church or on a catholic dating website, didn’t live together before marriage for religious reasons, etc) then I think having only a civil wedding could be a potential red flag that you didn’t follow your customs and that the civil wedding is just for convenience/to get the immigration paperwork going.

I'm going to say that in my knowledge of many, many Catholics - it being a requirement in this way and something that might raise a red flag is very much a corner case. And to represent it as something that you would have to explain as a default is a massive exaggeration. IMO.

Unless, sure, you have some specific background that suggests you it would be obligatory. But again - that's a corner case. IMO.

This approach might have made sense 30, 50, 60 years ago. Time to update priors.

 

[MJSPARV]

W

I'm going to say that in my knowledge of many, many Catholics - it being a requirement in this way and something that might raise a red flag is very much a corner case. And to represent it as something that you would have to explain as a default is a massive exaggeration. IMO.

Unless, sure, you have some specific background that suggests you it would be obligatory. But again - that's a corner case. IMO.

This approach might have made sense 30, 50, 60 years ago. Time to update priors.

We will have to agree to disagree on if it’s a corner case or standard practice for **practicing** Catholics to need a church wedding. In my experience with many, many Catholics, the practicing ones absolutely have church weddings.

I thought I was pretty clear in my previous post that it might be a red flag ONLY for those with a relationship history that might suggest being practicing, but in case it wasn’t clear, I agree that if you’re from a catholic country and not practicing that a civil wedding is fine. But not knowing where the OP falls on the spectrum wanted to be clear that IF there’s something there to suggest being practicing than yeah, have the church wedding.

 

[armoured]

W

We will have to agree to disagree on if it’s a corner case or standard practice for **practicing** Catholics to need a church wedding. In my experience with many, many Catholics, the practicing ones absolutely have church weddings.

You misunderstood - my point is that it's a corner case for it to be such an important factor for it to be a red flag; not just being practicing catholics who may wish/prefer to have a church wedding or consider it standard, but for the relationship history etc to be such that it's important enough to matter for an immigration to Canada file.

(I will comment that of the many many Catholics I know a quite significant percentage marry outside of the Catholic church, and hence choice of getting married in a catholic church is not at all a default and depending on circumstances complicated)

I thought I was pretty clear in my previous post that it might be a red flag ONLY for those with a relationship history that might suggest being practicing, but in case it wasn’t clear, I agree that if you’re from a catholic country and not practicing that a civil wedding is fine. But not knowing where the OP falls on the spectrum wanted to be clear that IF there’s something there to suggest being practicing than yeah, have the church wedding.

Your wording here is varying in ways that aren't clear to me, from just practicing to 'relationship history suggests practicing': I don't think just being practising catholics is sufficient for it to matter for immigration purposes, nor even run of the mill 'they both appear Catholic', or whatever. I'd suggest only some quite specific case like being from some isolated sub-group that only marries within their community or something.

That said, part of what I wrote in my response to you was actually referring to @canuck78's specific language, about having to explain the choice of a civil wedding as some kind of default - I did not mean to refer to what you wrote as a massive exaggeration, and if it came across that way, mea culpa. (Yep, I did mean it in the other context)

I might think it an issue for what I called corner cases (5%?), you may be talking about 10-20%(?), that's just a difference of degree. Suggesting it should be a default for the vast majority of Catholics and that IRCC will find this strange enough - how i read canuck's point - absurdly outdated.

 

[canuck78]

You misunderstood - my point is that it's a corner case for it to be such an important factor for it to be a red flag; not just being practicing catholics who may wish/prefer to have a church wedding or consider it standard, but for the relationship history etc to be such that it's important enough to matter for an immigration to Canada file.

(I will comment that of the many many Catholics I know a quite significant percentage marry outside of the Catholic church, and hence choice of getting married in a catholic church is not at all a default and depending on circumstances complicated)

Your wording here is varying in ways that aren't clear to me, from just practicing to 'relationship history suggests practicing': I don't think just being practising catholics is sufficient for it to matter for immigration purposes, nor even run of the mill 'they both appear Catholic', or whatever. I'd suggest only some quite specific case like being from some isolated sub-group that only marries within their community or something.

That said, part of what I wrote in my response to you was actually referring to @canuck78's specific language, about having to explain the choice of a civil wedding as some kind of default - I did not mean to refer to what you wrote as a massive exaggeration, and if it came across that way, mea culpa. (Yep, I did mean it in the other context)

I might think it an issue for what I called corner cases (5%?), you may be talking about 10-20%(?), that's just a difference of degree. Suggesting it should be a default for the vast majority of Catholics and that IRCC will find this strange enough - how i read canuck's point - absurdly outdated.

For those who are actively practicing a religion and where religion is large part of your identity and daily life it could raise concerns as to why a couple did not have a Catholic wedding. You can have a simple Catholic wedding ceremony. The majority of people in Canada are no longer very religious and would not identify themselves as a Catholic couple for example like this couple has. If you attend mass every Sunday, pictures of your relationship include activities with your church group, your relationship history includes your similar religious views and practices, etc. it would seem unusual not to have a catholic wedding ceremony. A Catholic ceremony could be almost as simple as a court wedding. We don’t know enough about this couple and how much religion is part of their daily lives but if it is a large part of their lives and identities would personally have a small Catholic wedding ceremony versus a small civil ceremony at the court house. Neither has to be fancy or expensive. There could also be very good reasons why the couple wants to have a civil ceremony versus a Catholic one even if practicing Catholics. Would always anticipate potential questions and concerns by a VO. If there are reasons why the couple wants to have a civil ceremony there shouldn’t be an issue but if OP is thinking about it then the VO may also wonder why as well so no harm anticipating the question.

 

[armoured]

The majority of people in Canada are no longer very religious and would not identify themselves as a Catholic couple for example like this couple has. ... We don’t know enough about this couple and how much religion is part of their daily lives

Approximately 90% of what you've written above is a fantasy novel in your head about their religion and lives.

My point is precisely that "we do not know enough about this couple", and if there is any reasonable assumption, when all they've said - in the entirety - is 'we are Catholic,' it is that there is no reason to particularly worry about this aspect, whether they choose a court wedding or a church one.

Your conceptions are outdated about what that means or is likely to mean, and your over-interpretation about what IRCC may think about this informed by those conceptions. In many countries where catholicism predominates civil weddings are mandated anyway and the church wedding often dispensed with. Leaving aside mixed marriages and the like.

To the extent this comes up on the IRCC forms, it's one question that doesn't request or require detail. (They could just write 'Christian' if they wanted or none, and no-one would bat an eye).

If you wish to continue to state a church wedding might be better, fine - but no need to scare anyone with all this UNLESS there are reasons to think otherwise specific to the case. And since no evidence of that being the case (like some specific sub-sect like Maronites in Egypt who really do marry mostly wihtin their own community or some statement of intense religious fervour and diligence which - repeat - they have not said), perhaps drop it until there's any reason whatsoever.

 

[txtoca]

I'm reaching out to this wonderful community in the hopes of gaining some insight into a matter my partner and I are currently facing. We have been in a relationship for less than two years and are planning to apply for spousal sponsorship, intending to make an outland application.

By the time we submit our application, we intend to have already celebrated our 1st anniversary and married. However, we're uncertain of the potential challenges or issues we may face due to the relatively short duration of our relationship at the point of application.

We're seeking advice and insights from those who have been in a similar situation. Have any of you successfully navigated this process under similar circumstances? Are there specific considerations or challenges we should be preparing for?

Your shared experiences and any guidance could greatly aid us in making a well-informed decision. We immensely appreciate any input in advance.

Had you known each other prior to being in a relationship?

We had a short relationship history, 2 months dating and 7 months married before applying. No issues or challenges from IRCC so far, not even an interview.

However, my family had known his family for years, so I wonder if that helped our case.