You were in a relationship and residing together from 2022. You were, therefore, common law from at least sometime in 2023. You became a PR after you were common-law, whether you realised it or not, and you were required to advise IRCC of a partner (married or common law) prior to becoming a PR. If that is the finding - and I believe that would be the correct finding - you cannot sponsor your partner.
Your 'intention to get married' and whether you were sure of marriage etc is irrelevant. That's the entire POINT of common law: you were residing together as a couple. In my view, 'other roommates' is irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate - convincingly - that you were not 'a couple' (eg not sharing a room, not 'conjugal' in any meaningful sense) throughout this period. I don't think that version of your relationship history, address, etc., is going to be credible. Your long history of not revealing your relationship to your parents is not supportive of your case (IMO) - revealing common law status to IRCC would have no impact on what your parents knew.
Now: I've taken the rather, shall we say, strict interpretation/application of what I know of the facts and the interpretation. You can argue these points - but I don't think it's productive to do so here, because you don't have to convince me, you will have to convince IRCC. I'm putting this strictly so that you get the point, clearly: you need proper professional advice, a lawyer.
Keep in mind: I'm not a supporter of the IRCC's approach to this for either married couples or common law - I think I understand the underlying policy reasons, and I think there are other ways to handle it - because I think it's too harsh. So I'm not telling you the above because I'm a hard-ass, but because I think you have a serious problem.
Small additional point: I repeat, my opinion/judgment. Happy to hear from others if different views and why. I would warn, however, that sometimes we'll see posts along the lines of "my case was similar and we didn't have any problem" - and I would be cautious because a) you don't know how different in detail and in what substantive ways, and b) previous cases won't tell you - with certainty - how cases will be treated now / in your case. Previous cases aren't 'precedent' as in law (even if/where the facts are identical) - they just give you a sense of how things might go. (That said: my judgment is based on my own impressions and I could be wrong too)
Last edited:
