REGULATE STATUS???

I've never been so confused!!! 

Yes, we are common law... We've lived together since October 2009... I understand about the outland sponsorship. But I was wondering about the "regulation of status" part.... 

Additional observations or clarifications:

There are ways through this without necessarily resolving the status issue, though not without some risk of being subject to deportation proceedings in the meantime.

Best to indeed get your status in order. And to do this you may indeed need to leave Canada. But, yes, once you leave you may indeed face difficulty obtaining re-entry into Canada. You have documented a desire to stay. To qualify for "visitor" status your intent must be to "visit" not stay.

That said, many times someone from a visa exempt country will be allowed into Canada with what is called "dual intent," that is, an intent to apply for permanent resident status and an intent to just visit while that application is in process. But that sometimes takes some convincing, and an important part of that is a clear showing that you are in a qualified relationship with a Canadian who has either already made the sponsorship application or who clearly affirms an intent to sponsor. And, indeed, it is best to be accompanied by the sponsoring partner when attempting to enter Canada this way.

That said, it is worth emphasizing that the fiancee relationship is not a qualified relationship for Canadian immigration purposes. A common-law relationship is a qualified relationship. Referring to a partner with whom one lives as a fiancee is almost sure to close the door (unless and until a qualified relationship is established) . . . an intent to enter into a marital relationship in the future implies there is currently not a level of commitment sufficient to be in a marital relationship. Just living together does not make two people common-law partners. Many, many people share homes, apartments, even bedrooms, without having the kind of commitment necessary to establish a common-law relationship (an in fact marriage as opposed to a marriage in law).

Going forward you need to keep this clear. A common-law couple can plan to legally marry in the future, but to be in a qualified relationship for immigration sponsorship purposes, they must currently be in a committed conjugal (marital or marital-like some say) relationship which, again, requires significantly more than sharing a bedroom for a full year. The plan to legally marry in the future is essentially irrelevant and in terms of addressing Canadian immigration and border authorities, actually best not mentioned unless specifically asked about.

Once the qualified common-law relationship is established, for sponsorship purposes it is almost as strong as a legal marriage, and in some ways is stronger since the couple have been living together for at least a full year, a rather strong indication that the relationship is genuine. However, given the way in which things are evaluated during an attempt to enter Canada at a POE, during which there is not necessarily an opportunity to even clearly make one's case let alone put proper proof forward, the common-law partner faces somewhat greater difficulty in convincing a CBSA officer to allow entry under so-called "dual intent." Regarding this I emphatically concur with Robsluv: you really need to be accompanied at the border by your partner, and your partner really needs to step forward during the attempted entry to affirm the relationship and a commitment to support you while in Canada and to provide a means for you to travel home if and when you are again ordered to leave Canada. Even then there are no guarantees. None at all.

Well, if you attempt to return to Canada accompanied by a "fiancee" that will do you very little good since that is not a qualified relationship which Canadian immigration recognizes. In fact, it will hurt your odds of being allowed entry.

Read the previous posts. Read information at the site Robsluv pointed you to.

Best way to avoid confusion is to get informed. Slow down, read for comprehension. Think about what has been said, by those here, by representatives of CIC, all of which is to be taken skeptically, to be evaluated by you critically, thoughtfully, but that is mostly about trying to understand what and why is true in what has been said, and why it might not apply to you, or how it does apply to you.

While not everything you say that "another person from Immigration" told you is necessarily correct (though it depends on the overall context and circumstances), an important part of it is, and that is that immigration is indeed likely to not consider a "fiancee" to be a common-law partner. I explained this to you in some detail in my previous post. I also explained in detail that merely living together does not establish the existence of a common-law relationship. Living together is a necessary part, but living together is not sufficient in itself to establish common-law.

Be aware, too, that your factual circumstances tend to ruffle CBSA and CIC feathers: you have violated Canadian immigration law. They tend to not like that.

Again, go to the site Robsluv pointed you to. Read the posts here again more slowly, trying to understand things and understand their significance.

And recognize that you are a foreign national in Canada, and you have been a foreign national out of status, which is comparable to what Americans call, in the U.S., an "illegal alien."

Edit to add:
Just in case I have not made it clear: to be in a common-law relationship, you must be (in effect) in a relationship that is, in fact, a relationship with commitments equal to those of a married couple. NO MATTER HOW LONG YOU HAVE LIVED TOGETHER. Thus, you would be PARTNERS, marital partners (marital in fact not law), just like a "spouse" is in a legal marriage. Not fiancees.





Edited by dpenabill - 24 Jan 2011 at 2:09pm

I agree - "fiance" does not qualify you to be sponsored for PR.  In fact, for some reason, it seems to be a word that really only aggravates them.  But they're not cooperating with you in regards to your common-law qualification (which is what happened to us, too, under similar circumstances at the border) - supposedly because you weren't in Canada with documented status during the co-habitation qualification period.  So that's not going to work as far as justification for entering because it's too hard for you to prove.  As I mentioned when we emailed, I think this an incorrect judgment on the part of the officer . . . the OP2 processing manual, in Section 5.35, recognizes that the definition of common-law is established by federal case law - not by Immigration Canada.  And it's unfair of CIC to deny the common-law qualification of a US/Canada couple based on the US partner not being in Canada with documented status when, most of the time, US citizens are not documented on entry to Canada.  The other point I made was that, if you had been living together in the US for a year, would Immigration Canada require that your partner produce evidence of having been legally documented in the US in order to "qualify" your common-law status?  Probably not - in fact, in some States I don't think they even recognize "common-law". 

Things will change when you're legally married - that's about the only time that they have nothing to argue with when it comes to whether or not you're at least eligible to be sponsored.  However, IMHO there's way too much discretion given to CIC officers to interpret the Act & Regulations.  They need some serious training and a lot more accountability.

Edited by RobsLuv - 05 Feb 2011 at 1:48pm