US & Canadian Citizen dating since Oct 2001 - Applying as Conjugal Partners

[DKA]

Hello,

I am a US Citizen, and my boyfriend is a Canadian Citizen, we have been dating since October 2001. We have finally decided where we would like to live together (in Canada) and he will be sponsoring me as a Conjugal Partner.

1. We've been reading forums and posting all over the net, some people say sponsoring as cojugal partners is very difficult to get approved, is this true?

2. We've been keeping in contact through phones, emails, texts, instant messengers - when were not flying back and forth each month. We don't have much emails to show as proof because majority was sent back in 2003 and also through work we talk everyday through emails but never kept copies, instant messengers were not kept, all we have really much to show are phone records. - Will phone records, copies of credit card statements to show tickets purchased and visa stamps in passports be sufficient?

3. We contacted the CIC Help Desk and as far as pictures goes, we were told we can put the pictures on a CD instead - has anyone submitted photos this way?

4. Our reason for applying as a conjugal partner and why we were unable to stay in each others country for more than a year was because both U.S. and Canadian immigration laws only allows us to stay upto 6 months. - Will this reason be sufficient?

5. Anyone who has applied as conjugal partners recently and have not received their applications back due to being incomplete what was your turn around time?

6. Our situation is a bit rare - we met through our parents. They were long time friends from their hometown country therefore we practically knew each other since we were babies and on the application they asks for the exact dates of when we met and when we were introduced to close friends and family members. How could we answer these questions accuratley if we all knew each other since we were babies? (How we used to see each other before we started dating? Our parents used to drive back and forth for visits throughout the year.)

Thanks for all your help in advance!

 

[RobsLuv]

Unfortunately, most US/Canada couples who apply as conjugal partners are refused - there is not a sufficient "immigration barrier" for visa-exempt nationals to make them truly unable to live together, and CIC usually assesses these couples as simply being unwilling to make the commitment necessary to marry. The "family class" qualification is about being family. A couple who is dating one another, but not intending to marry, is not "family". And if you do intend to marry, CIC is very clear that you are to do that first, before applying for permanent status. So you end up "damned if you do and damned if you don't" when you apply as conjugal partners. The conjugal partner category is intended to be used to waive the co-habitation requirement for common-law qualification when it's impossible for the couple to live together (i.e. they cannot get visas to enter each other's countries) AND it is impossible for them to marry. If it is possible for the two of you to marry, you have to do that (if you cannot cohabitate) before you're eligible to immigrate. The OP2 Processing Manual probably says it better than I can . . . beginning in Section 5.45

5.45 What is a 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. Both marriage and common-law partnership (common-law partnerships may be opposite-sex and same-sex) are legally recognized in Canada for purposes of federal benefits and obligations (Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, June 2000). In order to be eligible for federal benefits, couples must either be married or meet the definition of common-law partner in each statute or regulation. IRPA brought CIC's immigration legislation into conformity with the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act. Because of Supreme Court decisions, the choice not to marry is a constitutionally protected choice. Thus, CIC cannot require couples to marry in order to immigrate. However, if they are not married, they must be common-law partners. There is NO provision for fiancé(e)s or “intended common-law partners” in IRPA. If a Canadian and a foreign national can get married or can live together and establish a common-law relationship, this is what they are expected to have done before they submit sponsorship and immigration applications.

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

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.
5.47. Assessment of conjugal partner relationships
A foreign national who wants to immigrate as the conjugal partner of a sponsor must provide evidence that the two have maintained a conjugal relationship for at least one year (see Assessment of conjugal relationships, Section 5.26 above). The couple must provide evidence that they are in a committed and mutually interdependent relationship of some permanence and have combined their affairs to the extent possible. People who are dating or who are thinking about marrying or living together and establishing a common-law relationship are NOT in a conjugal relationship, nor are people who want to live together to “try out” their relationship . . .

In general, people who have made the level of commitment expected in a conjugal relationship would normally marry or live together. If a foreign national could have married their Canadian sponsor or lived with them, and chose not to do so, then it is questionable whether they have the significant degree of commitment characteristic of a conjugal relationship. The conjugal-partner applicant should explain why they have not been able to live continuously with their sponsor for at least one year. In most cases, there will be an immigration impediment to continuous cohabitation (e.g., inability to obtain long-stay visas for one another's country). Non-cohabitation for purely personal or economic reasons (i.e., did not want to give up a job or studies) does not normally qualify as a sufficient impediment, but should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Applicants should be able to provide evidence that they have seriously considered living together as common-law partners. For example, they might have explored options for living together in one another's country, such as work or study permits, how their occupational skills and qualifications would be recognized in their partner's country, visitor visas, long-term visitor status, etc. Officers should also inquire whether the couple is planning to marry. If they are planning to marry, then they are fiancés and may not have established a conjugal relationship. Officers should explain that there is no fiancé(e) category in Canada's immigration legislation, and that the foreign national fiancé(e) must be married to their Canadian sponsor and apply to immigrate as a married spouse. Couples may say that they want to live together for a while before they get married, but cannot qualify as common-law partners because they cannot arrange their affairs to meet the cohabitation requirement. It is not the purpose of the conjugal-partner category to allow couples to “try out” their relationship by living together before they get married. Such individuals are not yet in a conjugal relationship and thus are not conjugal partners. Persons in a conjugal relationship have already made a significant commitment and intend to be together for a significant time or even permanently. Although the intention of the conjugal-partner category is to accommodate those few Canadians with foreign partners who can neither marry nor live together, inability to marry cannot be an absolute requirement, since this could have the effect of “forcing” those couples to marry who may have chosen not to do so. Persons who have established and maintained a conjugal relationship for one year and who do not intend to marry might be conjugal partners if they have been unable to cohabit because of an immigration impediment or other serious barrier.

 

[DKA]

RobsLuv - thanks for the detailed reply.

So correct me if I'm wrong...my and my boyfriend by applying as Conjugal Partners, we are going about this the wrong way?

 

[RobsLuv]

In my opinion, yes. I won't say that you can't apply that way - but the chances that you'd be refused are high. Basically, if you are in a serious enough relationship that you one day expect to marry, they expect you to do that first - before you try to immigrate. If you are not in a serious enough relationship to one day expect to marry, they will question whether your relationship is "genuine" - in other words, about anything other than just a desire to immigrate to Canada.

You put yourselves at a serious disadvantage - and risk wasting a lot of time and money - if you apply as conjugal partners. When you both come from cultures where couples routinely move in together when they're ready to take that "next step" in the relationship, it can come as quite a shock to realize that it's not so simple when you're from two different countries. If it's possible for the two of you to "split" your time between the two countries and manage co-habitation that way, you might be able to qualify as common-law partners and then apply . . . but even that becomes difficult because you have to jump through hoops for a whole year just to get the qualification - and then you have another 6+ months of trying to figure out how to maintain that while you wait for permanent residence to be granted. It's very stressful on a relationship. One option you might look into is working holiday visas where you're given status to live and work in Canada - or him in the US - and possibly meet the cohabitation requirement. The other option, if you're considering marriage, is to get married.

 

[canadianwoman]

6. Our situation is a bit rare - we met through our parents. They were long time friends from their hometown country therefore we practically knew each other since we were babies and on the application they asks for the exact dates of when we met and when we were introduced to close friends and family members. How could we answer these questions accuratley if we all knew each other since we were babies? (How we used to see each other before we started dating? Our parents used to drive back and forth for visits throughout the year.)

Put down the approximate year - month and day are not necessary if you really don't know. Then attach a separate piece of paper and explain as you did here, with more detail.

It is difficult to be accepted as a conjugal partner, though not impossible. If you are planning to get married one day, I'd do it first and then apply.

 

[DKA]

1. What is considered to be an "immigration barrier"?
2. According to the CIC website "You can apply as a sponsor if your spouse, common-law or conjugal partner, or accompanying dependent children live with you in Canada, even if they do not have legal status in Canada. However, all the other requirements must be met."
a. Why are some people saying do not stay in Canada to exceed the 6 months you're entitled if the government is allowing it?
b. Is there some type of extention can apply for if I need to exceed the 6 months allowed?

 

[canadianwoman]

The visa officer will not see an immigration barrier in a Canada / USA relationship, in all likelihood. A typical barrier would be where one partner needs a visa to enter Canada, has applied, and has been refused, and the Canadian partner also cannot get a visa, or only a short one, for the partner's country.
You can come for six months, and then apply for an extension.
The gov't may allow applications from people without legal status, but it is not ideal.

 

[DKA]

CanadianWomen -

1. What kind of extension can I apply for? (What is the name of the application/form?)
2. During my six month stay - when will be a good time to apply for the extension inorder not to be penalized in occuring an illegal status?

 

[AllisonVSC]

DKA,

The extension is for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV). The cost to apply is $75. You should apply about 30 days before the current visit is over (or the end of the 6 months if you are not given a different leave by date). The app and general info can be found here.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/extend-stay.asp

You may be interested to know that I received a PR visa through family class conjugal partners. I'm from the US (female), my sponsor is Canadian (male) and we've been together since 2004. If you would like to know more, check my early posts, search "conjugal partners" or private message me. I will be happy to share my experience.

Regards, Allison

 

[journeyman]

From my experience, I would have to agree with RobsLuv.

I tried to sponsor my now spouse to join my in Canada from the US last year under conjugal partner. We thought we had a very strong case for why we could not meet common law (he at one point had to sign a form saying he was voluntarily choosing to leave Canada and would not try to re-enter), they said this would not appear on his record and he was therefore allowed to apply to be sponsored with no penalty, but that ended the ability to meet common law status. At the time I was legally separated but still in the waiting period before being able to go through the divorce period. So we couldn't legally marry. We both did not want to wait the time it would take for the divorce, marriage process or the time it would take for me to get a U.S. visa to meet common-law status in the U.S before applying for PR. So applied as conjugal. After a lengthy process we were refused and the refusal letter said "you have failed to prove that your relationship is more than a long distance dating arrangement". We had tons of documentation, budgets, financial records, cards, emails, photos, letter from friends, family, ....... etc. only to be told we were nothing more than a long distance dating arrangement.

Needless to say we were crushed. After realizing the length of time the appeal would take and that conjugal is rarely accepted, I went through the divorce waiting period, we are now married and our application was recieved by CPC-M on April 15th. I was approved as sponsor on May 25, 2010. We are now waiting for the Buffalo approval of PR. But if I knew then what we were about to go through the first time, then, we would never have spent the time and money on a conjugal application and would have waited until we could get marred. We made the process approximatly 15 months longer by going the way we did.

Hope this helps. Good luck.

 

[BeShoo]

After a lengthy process we were refused and the refusal letter said "you have failed to prove that your relationship is more than a long distance dating arrangement".

I think this is key. Refusal letters never say "your circumstances are not exceptional." That's not even one of the standard grounds for refusal.

What they are really looking for is any evidence that you do not have a "genuine and continuing" relationship. The main reason that conjugal partnerships are refused is not lack of persecution or the like, but just lack of evidence that you are in a marriage-like relationship. It has to have the characteristics of a marriage. You have to be conducting yourselves as a wife and husband would and not as a boyfriend and girlfriend would.

Even then, there is no guarantee, but that's a minimum. Some of the things that spouses do are not possible when you are not physically located together. You need to compensate all the more because of that.

Immigration officers are not lawyers or court judges but the supreme court has stated the characteristics of a conjugal relationship (whether a conjugal partnership, common-law partnership or marriage). You must demonstrate as many of these as possible to the greatest degree possible. This is the most detailed statement I found in an appeals case:

The Court listed seven characteristics of a conjugal relationship. These are:

SHELTER:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

SEXUAL AND PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

SERVICES:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals,
(b) Washing and mending clothes,
(c) Shopping,
(d) Household maintenance,
(e) Any other domestic services?

SOCIAL:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities? (Whether the partners share time together or participate in leisure activity together)
- Whether they have relationships or interaction with each other's respective family (What was the relationship and conduct of each of them towards members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?)

SOCIETAL:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community towards each of them and as a couple?

SUPPORT: (ECONOMIC):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution towards the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

CHILDREN:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

In listing these criteria, the Court confirms that they are not exhaustive, and that the weight accorded to each may vary depending on the circumstances in each case. The Court emphasizes that the approach employed in determining whether a claimed relationship is conjugal ought to be flexible.

Former Appeal Division member Anita Boscariol in the decision of McCullough and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration added the following characteristics, which I adopt and which Member Boscariol suggested to be implicit in the term "conjugal relationship":

• the partners have the capacity to, and consent freely to the relationship;

• a marriage between the claimed conjugal partners would not fall within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act,18 and thus would not be incestuous;

• the conjugal relationship is exclusive and monogamous; and

• the relationship is more than a precursor, or plan, to share a conjugal relationship in future.

 

[vinz]

I think this is key. Refusal letters never say "your circumstances are not exceptional." That's not even one of the standard grounds for refusal.

What they are really looking for is any evidence that you do not have a "genuine and continuing" relationship. The main reason that conjugal partnerships are refused is not lack of persecution or the like, but just lack of evidence that you are in a marriage-like relationship. It has to have the characteristics of a marriage. You have to be conducting yourselves as a wife and husband would and not as a boyfriend and girlfriend would.

Even then, there is not guarantee, but that's a minimum. Some of the things that spouses do are not possible when you are not physically located together. You need to compensate all the more because of that.

Immigration officers are not lawyers or court judges but the supreme court has stated the characteristics of a conjugal relationship (whether a conjugal partnership, common-law partnership or marriage). You must demonstrate as many of these as possible to the greatest degree possible. This is the most detailed statement I found in an appeals case:

The Court listed seven characteristics of a conjugal relationship. These are:

SHELTER:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

SEXUAL AND PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

SERVICES:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals,
(b) Washing and mending clothes,
(c) Shopping,
(d) Household maintenance,
(e) Any other domestic services?

SOCIAL:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities? (Whether the partners share time together or participate in leisure activity together)
- Whether they have relationships or interaction with each other's respective family (What was the relationship and conduct of each of them towards members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?)

SOCIETAL:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community towards each of them and as a couple?

SUPPORT: (ECONOMIC):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution towards the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

CHILDREN:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

In listing these criteria, the Court confirms that they are not exhaustive, and that the weight accorded to each may vary depending on the circumstances in each case. The Court emphasizes that the approach employed in determining whether a claimed relationship is conjugal ought to be flexible.

Former Appeal Division member Anita Boscariol in the decision of McCullough and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration added the following characteristics, which I adopt and which Member Boscariol suggested to be implicit in the term "conjugal relationship":

• the partners have the capacity to, and consent freely to the relationship;

• a marriage between the claimed conjugal partners would not fall within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act,18 and thus would not be incestuous;

• the conjugal relationship is exclusive and monogamous; and

• the relationship is more than a precursor, or plan, to share a conjugal relationship in future.

This is absolutely correct. can I use this article to post my friend account here? he's also into conjugal partneship application. thank you

 

[angelbrat]

I think this is key. Refusal letters never say "your circumstances are not exceptional." That's not even one of the standard grounds for refusal.

What they are really looking for is any evidence that you do not have a "genuine and continuing" relationship. The main reason that conjugal partnerships are refused is not lack of persecution or the like, but just lack of evidence that you are in a marriage-like relationship. It has to have the characteristics of a marriage. You have to be conducting yourselves as a wife and husband would and not as a boyfriend and girlfriend would.

Even then, there is not guarantee, but that's a minimum. Some of the things that spouses do are not possible when you are not physically located together. You need to compensate all the more because of that.

Immigration officers are not lawyers or court judges but the supreme court has stated the characteristics of a conjugal relationship (whether a conjugal partnership, common-law partnership or marriage). You must demonstrate as many of these as possible to the greatest degree possible. This is the most detailed statement I found in an appeals case:

The Court listed seven characteristics of a conjugal relationship. These are:

SHELTER:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

SEXUAL AND PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

SERVICES:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals,
(b) Washing and mending clothes,
(c) Shopping,
(d) Household maintenance,
(e) Any other domestic services?

SOCIAL:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities? (Whether the partners share time together or participate in leisure activity together)
- Whether they have relationships or interaction with each other's respective family (What was the relationship and conduct of each of them towards members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?)

SOCIETAL:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community towards each of them and as a couple?

SUPPORT: (ECONOMIC):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution towards the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

CHILDREN:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

In listing these criteria, the Court confirms that they are not exhaustive, and that the weight accorded to each may vary depending on the circumstances in each case. The Court emphasizes that the approach employed in determining whether a claimed relationship is conjugal ought to be flexible.

Former Appeal Division member Anita Boscariol in the decision of McCullough and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration added the following characteristics, which I adopt and which Member Boscariol suggested to be implicit in the term "conjugal relationship":

• the partners have the capacity to, and consent freely to the relationship;

• a marriage between the claimed conjugal partners would not fall within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act,18 and thus would not be incestuous;

• the conjugal relationship is exclusive and monogamous; and

• the relationship is more than a precursor, or plan, to share a conjugal relationship in future.

What an excellent piece of advice.....(have done the karma thingy btw...LOL)

This deserves to be a sticky.....mods any chance???

 

[BeShoo]

This is absolutely correct. can I use this article to post my friend account here? he's also into conjugal partneship application. thank you

Go right ahead. I didn't write it myself. I took it from an appeals decision where the judge wrote it very clearly and I reformatted it a bit.

 

[vinz]

Go right ahead. I didn't write it myself. I took it from an appeals decision where the judge wrote it very clearly and reformatted it a bit.

thanks