Checked ECAS & Interview May 5!!!

Long distraction follows:
(Involved analysis of common-law issues increasing prospect of interview and/or increased scrutiny of the existence of the relationship.)

I understand that the policy and rules have a more severe impact on some couples than others. I am not an apologist for CIC policy (though I suppose at times I may come across that way, even though my intent and hope is to help illuminate the process for others), and, in particular, it is not as if I have analyzed all the particulars.

That said, as definitive parameters as possible need to be delineated in order to guide prospective applicants, Canadians with significant ties and relationships to persons abroad, and the CIC personnel (including Visa Officers in embassies abroad) who process immigration matters; the parameters also need to be sufficiently clear that the Federal Court's can exercise reasonable review. Thus, lines need to be drawn somewhere and, as a practical matter, wherever they are drawn there will close cases/calls one side or the other of the lines as drawn.

The rub in your case, which I think is an important consideration other common-law applicants (or, especially those looking toward making common-law applications), is that dichotomy between proof of the existence of the qualifying relationship for a marriage in law versus a marriage in fact.

For a marriage in law, a government certificate constitutes the primary (and in the absence of indications to the contrary, like a plural marriage or one violating affinity conditions) essentially sufficient proof of the existence of the qualifying relationship. In short, the applicant effectively meets the applicant's burden of proof by submitting a copy of a marriage certificate.

For a marriage in fact (more often referred to as a "common-law" relationship), meeting the applicant's burden of proof is a matter of persuasively/convincingly marshalling the evidence to prove the fact of an exclusive, conjugal relationship with commitments on a par with a traditional marriage. Certain minimum factual requirements are specified, the requirement of a full year of cohabitation looming as the most salient of these.

The above is in effect well-known, the well-recognized analysis of the applicant's burden of proof relative to establishing the existence of the qualifying relationship.

The following is my further analysis, though as I recall there is at least some suggestion or allusion to this in CIC materials:

The essence of the proof of a common-law relationship, thus, revolves around living together; so, when a couple are not physically living together, that poses a prima facie indication contrary to being common-law. The burden then is on the applicant to overcome the inference (due to not physically living together) that the couple are not in a common-law relationship or that the common-law relationship has not terminated.

I have little idea to what extent that alone will trigger a significantly more intrusive, intensive degree of scrutiny, though I believe it probably is proportionate to various factors, like the underlying strength of evidence showing the creation and maintenance of the common-law relationship itself, as well as the nature, length, and reason for the separation. The longer the separation, the more skepticism I suspect.

In your case, there is the added factor of an "ex" in the picture, and the applicant living in (relatively) closer proximity to the "ex" than to the sponsor. That probably (emphasis on probably since in many respects I am engaging in speculation -- albeit I believe it is a rational, reasonable assessment of what is likely) elevates the degree of scrutiny in your case on at least three levels, two simply related to proving the existence of the qualifying relationship (as in proof of common-law notwithstanding living apart, and proof of termination of relationship with "ex"), and the other relative to MOC/fraud . . . one of the more common "frauds" committed is a FN couple terminates their relationship so that one can enter into a marriage/relationship with a Canadian, get sponsored into Canada, terminate the relationship with the Canadian, and then turn around and sponsor their original partner. I am not suggesting, in anyway whatsoever, that that is your situation (and indeed, it appears to absolutely not be), but CIC is a bureaucracy not a social service, they operate based on checklists and prescribed parameters, so your scenario may very well trigger a degree of scrutiny of this sort as well . . . all the time, remember, that the burden of proof is on the applicant.

Again, I recognize that the policies and parameters followed by CIC can, and on perhaps too many occasions do have a disproportionately unfair, even severe, impact on some legitimate Canadian sponsors and PR applicants. I have offered this in an effort to illuminate how and why (at least to the extent I can discern) the process works this way in cases like this.

I doubt this info is of much help to you now. It appears you are nearly through the process and all should go well . . . and I certainly hope it does. But perhaps it will help others to understand the implications of certain factual circumstances better so they can better offer prospective applicants relevant and informative advice.       

Entirely understandable. And unfortunate. And, perhaps, also a cautionary tale . . . the process is no rubber stamp, and prospective sponsors and applicants are wise to invest more than a little time navigating the nuances of the process before sending in that application.

It does appear, however, that the major hurdles have been passed, and it should get resolved, and favourably so, relatively soon.

Tunisianbride:  please make sure to write after your interview - I am very curious as to what they are going to ask you, and what your general impression is of the Paris visa office.  I'm fully expecting an invterview there later this year, so the more information I have, the better.

Thinking about you!!!

I am very eager to hear how your interview went!