Spousal sponsorship

[snj]

hey All...
i will b filling out the applications for sponsoring my husband. I am canadian and he is indian...v got married last year in june baq in india. v currently reside in Saudi Arabia due to his job. I am a homemaker. Now what are our chances. I am having dual citizenship. i have a canadian passport and oci card frm india. I will be applying from Saudi Arabia. What things should i keep in mind to make my case strong. Also is der any site which walks us thru da application coz dey really seem complicated.

thank u all !

 

[Leon]

As a Canadian citizen, you may sponsor your husband for PR even though you do not currently live in Canada. You do however have to prove plans to move to Canada when he gets his PR. Proof could be job offer, having arranged housing, being accepted to college or at the very least a letter from a relative or a friend stating that they know of your plans and will let you stay with them while you look for housing.

 

[snj]

yes i have a brother who lives der wid his family ....

now is der a website to show me HOW to fill up dese forms....

who would be a co-signer?!

WE have no KIDS...so for non-accompanying family members...do i put down da names of my in-laws? does dat also include my sister-in-law who is married???

and places where it says accompanying spouse or accompanying dependent children or adoption...do i leave dem jst blanks??

 

[abhi211984]

hi
Im a live-in caregiver in toronto. I just got married to a failed refugee claiment who is going back to pakistan in a week. I have finish my 2 years requirment for PR so ill be filing application for PR. My question are
1: should i just include him in my application or does he have to fill his own application? Can anyone tell which application form do we have to fill (eg: IMM ?)
2:About proving our marriage we have 2.5 years of call history and also around 200 pics which includes us and our friends in it. We also recieved a congratulation card from his parents. Are this enough proofs to show are relationship is genuien?
3:Ill be applying for PR in May can anyone tell me how long would this kind of process will take ?
4: He is leaving in a week should he do his police clearance for canada before he leave or when the immigration ask his to do it? i was thinking to send it with my application.
last can anyone explain the whole procdure we would be going through please
Thanks in Advance

 

[glak1234]

Does cohabitation refer to living together on a long-term basis?
Can I state that I "cohabited" with my husband whenever I was there visiting him, does that count?

 

[gigi1612]

Does cohabitation refer to living together on a long-term basis?
Can I state that I "cohabited" with my husband whenever I was there visiting him, does that count?

Visiting is not cohabitating

 

[mustafa1]

hi there,
thank you for helping soo many people...im also looking for some guidence plz assit..
my wife who was my girl friend before and i go a long way back.... we were classmates for a long time 5 years .. than i moved to canada and got my pr card... we lost contact.... for a year and a half when i arrived in canada she being my GF at that time... after a year and half i contacted her to find out that she got married and diverosed in a short while... they didnt live togeter even... i proposed and got married... now we r married... im applying to sponser her... as per proving our relatioship... i have our school certificates.. showing us as classfellows... changed her adress on id card to mine.. added husband name on id card... changed her facebook status.. attached photos of honymoon and parties that we attended...our phone bills... recipts of stay...what else can be a good idea to add? i dont feel comfortabe sharing personal emails... should i still add the emails? what else should i add as proof? will her previous marriage affect my process? i will be attacing divorce order from court as well of previous marriage...
sincerely
mustafa

 

[Love_Young]

Visiting is not cohabitating

Actually thats wrong to state. You can still cohabit and only be "visiting".
How else do you think many other common-law couples have formed and qualified to apply for PR?
One of the partner's usually comes to visit/work/study on a temporary basis and sometimes both partners will alternate between visiting each others countries. Ex. Like US and Canadian couple. Canadian partner resides with American partner in the US for 6 months and then American partner resides with the Canadian partner in Canada for 6 months. And if they already established a conjugal relationship then with proof of having cohabited in conjugal like manner for a year or more they should qualify for common-law.

I guess what I am trying to say is you can be living together even with the other partner in the country on a temporary basis and it is still qualify as cohabiting.

 

[kourts]

Would it be considered residing if my wife who is a Canadian citizen came to the states after the application was submitted and she kept her address and everything in Canada?

 

[gigi1612]

Actually thats wrong to state. You can still cohabit and only be "visiting".
How else do you think many other common-law couples have formed and qualified to apply for PR?
One of the partner's usually comes to visit/work/study on a temporary basis and sometimes both partners will alternate between visiting each others countries. Ex. Like US and Canadian couple. Canadian partner resides with American partner in the US for 6 months and then American partner resides with the Canadian partner in Canada for 6 months. And if they already established a conjugal relationship then with proof of having cohabited in conjugal like manner for a year or more they should qualify for common-law.

I guess what I am trying to say is you can be living together even with the other partner in the country on a temporary basis and it is still qualify as cohabiting.

glak1234 ask: "Can I state that I "cohabited" with my husband whenever I was there visiting him, does that count?" No it doesn't

Common-law relationship is when the couple have lived together in a continuos relatioship for at least 12 months. Sure they can be separate for a few days or a week of two for different reasons (business travel, vacation, etc) but basically they reside in the same address for at least 12 months.

You can read at the Manual OP 2-Processing member of the family class, section 5.34 and 5.35. It says:

"5.34. Recognition of a common-law relationship
A common-law relationship is fact-based and exists from the day in which two individuals
demonstrate that the relationship exists on the basis of the facts. The onus is on the applicants to
prove that they are in a conjugal relationship and that they are cohabiting, having so cohabited for
a period of at least one year, when the application is received at CPC-M.

5.35. What is cohabitation?

“Cohabitation” means “living together.” Two people who are cohabiting have combined their affairs and set up their household together in one dwelling. To be considered common-law partners, they must have cohabited for at least one year. This is the standard definition used across the federal government. It means continuous cohabitation for one year, not intermittent cohabitation adding up to one year. The continuous nature of the cohabitation is a universal understanding based on case law.

While cohabitation means living together continuously, from time to time, one or the other partner may have left the home for work or business travel, family obligations, and so on. The separation must be temporary and short. "


But glak1234 and her husband are married, so that makes her husband eligible to apply for permanent residence under the members of the Family Class category regardles of how long they have cohabited. The minimum 12 month cohabiting period applies only to common-law relationships.

Take a look section 5.45, paragraph 3:

" Marriage immediately creates a legal relationship recognized for immigration purposes. Commonlaw partners, however, have to meet the definition, including living together continuously for one year to have their relationship legally recognized."

I hope hope this hepl to clarify some doubts...


http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02-eng.pdf

 

[gigi1612]

Actually thats wrong to state. You can still cohabit and only be "visiting".
How else do you think many other common-law couples have formed and qualified to apply for PR?
One of the partner's usually comes to visit/work/study on a temporary basis and sometimes both partners will alternate between visiting each others countries. Ex. Like US and Canadian couple. Canadian partner resides with American partner in the US for 6 months and then American partner resides with the Canadian partner in Canada for 6 months. And if they already established a conjugal relationship then with proof of having cohabited in conjugal like manner for a year or more they should qualify for common-law.

I guess what I am trying to say is you can be living together even with the other partner in the country on a temporary basis and it is still qualify as cohabiting.

There is another option under the Members of the family class category. It's called conjugal partner.

" This category was created for exceptional circumstances – for foreign national partners of Canadian or permanent resident sponsors who would ordinarily apply as common-law partners but for the fact that they have not been able to live together continuously for one year, usually because of an immigration impediment. In most cases, the foreign partner is also not able to marry their sponsor and qualify as a spouse. In all other respects, the couple is similar to a common-law couple or a married couple, i.e., they have been in a bona fide conjugal relationship for a period of at least one year."

" In the immigration context, there are some exceptional circumstances where a Canadian is in a conjugal relationship with a foreign national partner and would ordinarily sponsor that person as a common-law partner, but the two have not been able to live together continuously for one year, usually because immigration rules prevent them from long stays in one another's countries. As well, for these individuals, marriage is usually not an available option. The conjugal partner category is mainly intended for partners where neither common-law partner status nor marriage is possible, usually because of marital
status or sexual orientation (both analogous grounds of discrimination under the Charter),
combined with an immigration barrier.

For example, the foreign partner may be married but comes from a country where divorce is not possible or the Canadian and partner may be in a same-sex relationship. In both cases, the partners probably will not be able to obtain long-stay visas in order to live together in one another's country and meet the cohabitation requirement for common-law partners. Because the other option – marriage – is not available to these couples, they are permanently separated. This is unfair and discriminatory. The conjugal partner category provides the ability for a Canadian in these circumstances to sponsor the foreign national partner. It is not intended to be used to avoid the usual requirement to be a spouse or common-law partner before immigrating. The conjugal partner category applies only to the family class and only to a foreign national sponsored by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident living in Canada. This category does not apply to the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class as the exception would not be required in Canada."

" 5.46. Can conjugal partners be substitutes for fiancé(e)s? Conjugal partners are NOT substitutes for fiancé(e)s. CIC decided that it no longer wanted to be in the business of assessing future relationships or the intention of two individuals to establish and maintain a conjugal relationship. Thus, there is no fiancé(e) category in the IRPA and Regulations. If they intend to apply as spouses, Canadians and their foreign national fiancé(e)s are expected
to be married before the immigration process takes place, i.e., the foreign national must be married to the Canadian sponsor and apply to immigrate as a married spouse.

Fiancé(e)s are individuals who intend to marry and intend to establish a conjugal relationship. In most cases, they have not yet established a conjugal relationship. They intend to combine their affairs and become mutually interdependent, but have not yet done so. Even if they have a sexual relationship, they have not yet achieved the level of mutual interdependence that characterizes a conjugal relationship although they intend to do so at some point when they marry.

Most traditional fiancé(e)s cannot meet the definition of conjugal partner. They have not merged their affairs and established the required mutual interdependency. As well, conjugal partners must have established a sexual relationship, and traditional fiancé(e)s would be unlikely to meet this
criterion."

Like I said, i hope this help to other members of this forum.

It took us a lot of time to read and understand this manual. We didn't want to hire a consultan or a lawyer.

Cheers!!!

 

[Love_Young]

gigi1612: I understand what the regulations are on cohabitation. It is my fault that I misinterpreted what you were coming across with. I thought they were meaning could they visit each other (live in each others country) and still qualify for cohabitation. Not like visit only a few months every so often. Anyway though because like I said, if they reside TOGETHER in a conjugal relationship for one year or more and can establish it they would qualify for common-law. But as you stated they qualify for the spousal category since they are married so this wouldn't apply however they should still provide proof of conjugal aspects to the relationship. What I am trying to say is, yes you can live temporarily in each others countries while visiting and it count as cohabiting but they need to have resided together in a conjugal relationship and cohabiting for one continuous year with no separations unless they are short like for a few days or week.

Example US partner and Canadian couple (A+B=C):
A) Canadian partner goes to reside with the US partner in their home together while in conjugal relationship for 6 months (Canadian "visited" the US)

B) Canadian partner and US partner then travel together back to Canada where they reside together in a conjugal relationship for another 6 months (American "visited" Canada)

C) Canadian partner and US partner "visited" each partners home country while living in the same home and maintaining a conjugal relationship with no separations. Canadian visited for 6 months with their partner in the US then the American came back with the Canadian to reside at their home for 6 months as well. All this while they had established a conjugal relationship together totaling up to 12 months. They can then now qualify for common-law with evidence of qualifications being met.

Is this understandable?

 

[gigi1612]

gigi1612: I understand what the regulations are on cohabitation. It is my fault that I misinterpreted what you were coming across with. I thought they were meaning could they visit each other (live in each others country) and still qualify for cohabitation. Not like visit only a few months every so often. Anyway though because like I said, if they reside TOGETHER in a conjugal relationship for one year or more and can establish it they would qualify for common-law. But as you stated they qualify for the spousal category since they are married so this wouldn't apply however they should still provide proof of conjugal aspects to the relationship. What I am trying to say is, yes you can live temporarily in each others countries while visiting and it count as cohabiting but they need to have resided together in a conjugal relationship and cohabiting for one continuous year with no separations unless they are short like for a few days or week.

Example US partner and Canadian couple (A+B=C):
A) Canadian partner goes to reside with the US partner in their home together while in conjugal relationship for 6 months (Canadian "visited" the US)

B) Canadian partner and US partner then travel together back to Canada where they reside together in a conjugal relationship for another 6 months (American "visited" Canada)

C) Canadian partner and US partner "visited" each partners home country while living in the same home and maintaining a conjugal relationship with no separations. Canadian visited for 6 months with their partner in the US then the American came back with the Canadian to reside at their home for 6 months as well. All this while they had established a conjugal relationship together totaling up to 12 months. They can then now qualify for common-law with evidence of qualifications being met.

Is this understandable?

Yeah. It is, and you are right.

 

[Love_Young]

Also gigi1612 by "conjugal" I am not meaning the other family class category, I am talking about this:

"Characteristics of conjugal relationships

The word “conjugal” is not defined in legislation; however, the factors that are used to determine
whether a couple is in a conjugal relationship are described in court decisions.

Marriage is a status-based relationship existing from the day the marriage is legally valid until it is
severed by death or divorce. A common-law relationship (and in the immigration context, a
conjugal partner relationship) is a fact-based relationship which exists from the day on which the
two individuals can reasonably demonstrate that the relationship meets the definition set out in the
Regulations. While this is a significant difference, there are many similarities in the two types of
relationships. This is because of the history of the recognition in law of common-law relationships
and their definition, which includes the word “conjugal.”

The term “conjugal” was originally used to describe marriage. Then, over the years, it was
expanded by various court decisions to describe “marriage-like” relationships, i.e., a man and a
woman in a common-law relationship. With the M. v. H. decision in 1999, the Supreme Court of
Canada further expanded the term to include same-sex common-law couples.
The word “conjugal” does not mean “sexual relations” alone. It signifies that there is a significant
degree of attachment between two partners. The word “conjugal” comes from two Latin words,
one meaning “join” and the other meaning “yoke,” thus, literally, the term means “joined together”
or “yoked together.”

In the M. v. H. decision, the Supreme Court adopts the list of factors that must be considered in
determining whether any two individuals are actually in a conjugal relationship from the decision of
the Ontario Court of Appeal in Moldowich v. Penttinen.

They include:
• shared shelter (e.g., sleeping arrangements);
• sexual and personal behaviour (e.g., fidelity, commitment, feelings towards each other);
• services (e.g., conduct and habit with respect to the sharing of household chores)
• social activities (e.g., their attitude and conduct as a couple in the community and with their
families);
• economic support (e.g., financial arrangements, ownership of property);
• children (e.g., attitude and conduct concerning children)
• the societal perception of the two as a couple.

From the language used by the Supreme Court throughout M. v. H., it is clear that a conjugal
relationship is one of some permanence, where individuals are interdependent – financially,
socially, emotionally, and physically – where they share household and related responsibilities,
and where they have made a serious commitment to one another.

Based on this, the following characteristics should be present to some degree in all conjugal
relationships, married and unmarried:
• mutual commitment to a shared life;
• exclusive – cannot be in more than one conjugal relationship at a time;
• intimate – commitment to sexual exclusivity;
• interdependent – physically, emotionally, financially, socially;
• permanent – long-term, genuine and continuing relationship;
• present themselves as a couple;
• regarded by others as a couple;
• caring for children (if there are children).

People who are dating or who are thinking about marrying or living together and establishing a
common-law relationship are NOT yet in a conjugal relationship, nor are people who want to live
together to “try out” their relationship.

Persons in a conjugal relationship have made a significant commitment to one another. A married
couple makes the commitment publicly at a specific point in time via their marriage vows and
ceremony, and the marriage certificate and registration is a record of that commitment. In a
common-law or conjugal partner relationship, there is not necessarily a single point in time at
which a commitment is made, and there is no one legal document attesting to the commitment.
Instead, there is the passage of time together, the building of intimacy and emotional ties and the
accumulation of other types of evidence, such as naming one another as beneficiaries of
insurance policies or estates, joint ownership of possessions, joint decision-making with
consequences for one partner affecting the other, and financial support of one another (joint
expenses or sharing of income, etc. When taken together, these facts indicate that the couple has
come to a similar point as that of a married couple – there is significant commitment and mutual
interdependence in a monogamous relationship of some permanence. "

 

[Love_Young]

Also this may help anyone whom is trying to determine if they meet the qualifications for common-law.
PLEASE READ BELOW! (sorry for the long post)

Recognition of a common-law relationship
A common-law relationship is fact-based and exists from the day in which two individuals
demonstrate that the relationship exists on the basis of the facts. The onus is on the applicants to
prove that they are in a conjugal relationship and that they are cohabiting, having so cohabited for
a period of at least one year, when the application is received at CPC-M.

A common-law relationship is legally a de facto relationship, meaning that it must be established
in each individual case, on the facts. This is in contrast to a marriage, which is legally a de jure
relationship, meaning that it has been established in law.

What is cohabitation?

“Cohabitation” means “living together.” Two people who are cohabiting have combined their affairs
and set up their household together in one dwelling. To be considered common-law partners, they
must have cohabited for at least one year. This is the standard definition used across the federal
government. It means continuous cohabitation for one year, not intermittent cohabitation
adding up to one year. The continuous nature of the cohabitation is a universal understanding
based on case law.

While cohabitation means living together continuously, from time to time, one or the other partner
may have left the home for work or business travel, family obligations, and so on. The separation
must be temporary and short.

The following is a list of indicators about the nature of the household that constitute evidence
that a couple in a conjugal relationship is cohabiting:
• Joint bank accounts and/or credit cards;
• Joint ownership of residential property;
• Joint residential leases;
• Joint rental receipts;
• Joint utilities accounts (electricity, gas, telephone);
• Joint management of household expenditures;
• Evidence of joint purchases, especially for household items;
• Correspondence addressed to either or both parties at the same address;
• Important documents of both parties show the same address, e.g., identification documents,
driver’s licenses, insurance polices, etc.;
• Shared responsibility for household management, household chores, etc.;
• Evidence of children of one or both partners residing with the couple;
• Telephone calls.

These elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary to prove
cohabitation. This list is not exhaustive; other evidence may be taken into consideration.

How can someone in Canada sponsor a common-law partner from outside Canada when
the definition says “is cohabiting”?

According to case law, the definition of common-law partner should be read as “an individual who
is (ordinarily) cohabiting”. After the one year period of cohabitation has been established, the
partners may live apart for periods of time without legally breaking the cohabitation. For example,
a couple may have been separated due to armed conflict, illness of a family member, or for
employment or education-related reasons, and therefore do not cohabit at present (see also 5.44
for information on persecution and penal control). Despite the break in cohabitation, a commonlaw relationship exists if the couple has cohabited continuously in a conjugal relationship in the
past for at least one year and intend to do so again as soon as possible. There should be
evidence demonstrating that both parties are continuing the relationship, such as visits,
correspondence, and telephone calls.

This situation is similar to a marriage where the parties are temporarily separated or not
cohabiting for a variety of reasons, but still considers themselves to be married and living in a
conjugal relationship with their spouse with the intention of living together as soon as possible.
For common-law relationships (and marriage), the longer the period of separation without any
cohabitation, the more difficult it is to establish that the common-law relationship (or marriage) still
exists.