Spousal Sponsorship

[Emily Cho]

I received my eCOPR in August 2023. On my PR application, I declared that I was single, but I had actually been in a common-law relationship since July 2023 (we started living together in July 2022). I didn’t update IRCC at the time because all our bills and the lease were still under my name, and we didn’t realize we needed to update our relationship status as common law partnership concept was not very clear to us at that time. My wife updated her address and was added to the utility bills in September 2022. We have now applied for spousal sponsorship and in the timeline, we mentioned July 2022 as the start of living together in a common law partnership, but we received a PFL asking why I didn’t declare her during my PR process.

Could you please tell me what are our chances of convincing the officer? What explanations can strength our case?Has anyone had a similar experience?

 

[Naturgrl]

Convince officers about what? You misrepresented yourself as single when you got PR but were common law. You said July 2022 as date of living together so you told IRCC that you were in fact common law when you got PR.

Get a lawyer but you may never be able to sponsor your spouse.

 

[armoured]

Could you please tell me what are our chances of convincing the officer? What explanations can strength our case?Has anyone had a similar experience?

I don't overall disagree with @Naturgrl - chances are you won't be able to sponsor your spouse because not declared.

That said: you can speak to a lawyer. Occasionally an applicant or two has had success (reportedly) by laying out the facts, truthfully, esp where there was ambiguity or uncertainty about when the cohabitation/common law period started, and basically asking for understanding/leniency. (Not, I think, outright asking them to ignore, but making the case that it was not clear and they could not have known). Truth is though we rarely know much about the details of each case so can also be that there was something substantially different.

Note: I'm not saying I think this will work and you should speak to a lawyer. Repeat the 'chances are' that is not an optimistic statement at all.

 

[Naturgrl]

I don't overall disagree with @Naturgrl - chances are you won't be able to sponsor your spouse because not declared.

That said: you can speak to a lawyer. Occasionally an applicant or two has had success (reportedly) by laying out the facts, truthfully, esp where there was ambiguity or uncertainty about when the cohabitation/common law period started, and basically asking for understanding/leniency. (Not, I think, outright asking them to ignore, but making the case that it was not clear and they could not have known). Truth is though we rarely know much about the details of each case so can also be that there was something substantially different.

Note: I'm not saying I think this will work and you should speak to a lawyer. Repeat the 'chances are' that is not an optimistic statement at all.

There doesn't seem to be uncertainty on when common law started since OP said July 22, and signed off on it. Now they have to prove that they were not common law until later, and prove it. As we both mentioned they need a lawyer. They may get lucky.

 

[armoured]

There doesn't seem to be uncertainty on when common law started since OP said July 22, and signed off on it. Now they have to prove that they were not common law until later, and prove it. As we both mentioned they need a lawyer. They may get lucky.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm making a slightly different point, that some leniency on the part of IRCC is not impossible, if the claim is made - variously [ we didn't realise / it's complicated / we did not make to wish false claim of marital status / etc.]

Note, uncertainty as much on my part on what to say - we don't know. It's rare. But it's possible.

See the other side of the coin is that they clearly weren't intending to misrepresent here (they told the truth about the July 22 date) [so arguably couldn't have intended to misrepresent before, when they would have known even less than now.]

Again: not a magic bullet. Chances are low. But the whole 'intention' aspect of misrepresentation is murky.

And as side note why I think the 'lifetime ban' for this especially for common law (given that common law isn't even consistent between the provinces and the feds!) is overly harsh. And possibly can be challenged in many respects, because IRCC generally just assumes misrepresentation is automatic, when it requires both materiality and (I think) intent. If I were a lawyer and inclined to pursue this, seems a colourable challenge claim could be made on basis eg "we looked it up and in Ontario where we live it's three years, so we had zero reason to believe it even could be just one year for immigration purposes." Etc.

I mean, there's some argument to be made that even a relatively sophisticated person could look things up, properly read that provinces have jurisdction over unmarried cohabitation relationships (and family law generally), and miss the fact that the feds have their own definitions for their own purposes but specific only to some domains (tax, immigration).

Bluntly, it's bloody confusing even for Canadians that grow up here. If intent is required for a harsh punishment under misrepresentation (which I mean as a question, even though one most people would think 'should be' on the basis of just fairness), then there's a plausible case there. (Plausible does not necessarily mean a good one, mind)

Anyway: overall I think this still means low chance of success, but worth trying - as on the 'next level' part of the argument, IRCC implementing a pure 'blanket rule' for all such cases may make it even more vulnerable to a challenge (i.e. if discovery and processing notes could show that this blanket rule helps demonstrate that there is no reasoning nor consideration of either materiality or intention). So I suspect they do not have and realize they could not maintain such a blanket rule.

Wow should stop. Too much coffee apparently.

And repeat caveat: I'm not a lawyer, although acquainted with legal aspects/have had to deal with lawyers a lot - so I could well have misinterpreted something basic or missed something. Not legal advice, my opinion, etc.

 

[Emily Cho]

I'm not disagreeing. I'm making a slightly different point, that some leniency on the part of IRCC is not impossible, if the claim is made - variously [ we didn't realise / it's complicated / we did not make to wish false claim of marital status / etc.]

Note, uncertainty as much on my part on what to say - we don't know. It's rare. But it's possible.

See the other side of the coin is that they clearly weren't intending to misrepresent here (they told the truth about the July 22 date) [so arguably couldn't have intended to misrepresent before, when they would have known even less than now.]

Again: not a magic bullet. Chances are low. But the whole 'intention' aspect of misrepresentation is murky.

And as side note why I think the 'lifetime ban' for this especially for common law (given that common law isn't even consistent between the provinces and the feds!) is overly harsh. And possibly can be challenged in many respects, because IRCC generally just assumes misrepresentation is automatic, when it requires both materiality and (I think) intent. If I were a lawyer and inclined to pursue this, seems a colourable challenge claim could be made on basis eg "we looked it up and in Ontario where we live it's three years, so we had zero reason to believe it even could be just one year for immigration purposes." Etc.

I mean, there's some argument to be made that even a relatively sophisticated person could look things up, properly read that provinces have jurisdction over unmarried cohabitation relationships (and family law generally), and miss the fact that the feds have their own definitions for their own purposes but specific only to some domains (tax, immigration).

Bluntly, it's bloody confusing even for Canadians that grow up here. If intent is required for a harsh punishment under misrepresentation (which I mean as a question, even though one most people would think 'should be' on the basis of just fairness), then there's a plausible case there. (Plausible does not necessarily mean a good one, mind)

Anyway: overall I think this still means low chance of success, but worth trying - as on the 'next level' part of the argument, IRCC implementing a pure 'blanket rule' for all such cases may make it even more vulnerable to a challenge (i.e. if discovery and processing notes could show that this blanket rule helps demonstrate that there is no reasoning nor consideration of either materiality or intention). So I suspect they do not have and realize they could not maintain such a blanket rule.

Wow should stop. Too much coffee apparently.

And repeat caveat: I'm not a lawyer, although acquainted with legal aspects/have had to deal with lawyers a lot - so I could well have misinterpreted something basic or missed something. Not legal advice, my opinion, etc.

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!

 

[armoured]

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!

Thanks for your patience (at reading that).

I underline for almost everyone though: declaring your spouse is EXTREMELY important, and failure to do so results in SEVERE consequences.

Not understanding the common law requirements is probably the most common - in simple terms, live together for 12 months, you are common law. Period. All the blah-blah-blah about we weren't sure, it didn't feel like a real relationship, we had separate rooms, we werent' sharing bills, we had other roommates, 'it was in the past', etc? Forget that - it is nonsense. If you were in ANY form of romantic/conjugal relationship at any part of that time living together - assume IRCC will conclude that living at the same address means it was a relationship (that after 12 months becomes common law), no excuses (and any exceptions rare / should not be counted on). Fail to declare your common law as of the date you become a PR? You can NEVER sponsor that person.

[My ramblings above about legal aspects may be interesting, but to even attempt to challenge it would be $$$$$$ expensive, and likely fail, too. Long shots succeeding are rare.]

And for your specific case @Emily Cho : repeat what I and others wrote above, speak to a lawyer, make sure to respond to that PFL in time, and good luck - chances are not good.

Often the best (only) alternative is for the common law spouse to qualify on their own - and for many that will not be possible.

 

[scylla]

I received my eCOPR in August 2023. On my PR application, I declared that I was single, but I had actually been in a common-law relationship since July 2023 (we started living together in July 2022). I didn’t update IRCC at the time because all our bills and the lease were still under my name, and we didn’t realize we needed to update our relationship status as common law partnership concept was not very clear to us at that time. My wife updated her address and was added to the utility bills in September 2022. We have now applied for spousal sponsorship and in the timeline, we mentioned July 2022 as the start of living together in a common law partnership, but we received a PFL asking why I didn’t declare her during my PR process.

Could you please tell me what are our chances of convincing the officer? What explanations can strength our case?Has anyone had a similar experience?

You should be prepared that the application is going to be refused since you were clearly common law at the time you landed and became a PR but failed to declare your partner. Your partner will need to quaify and apply for PR on their own through an economic immigration stream like express entry. Get help from a lawyer to respond.

 

[Naturgrl]

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!

Also just to add but getting married now will not change anything either.