Canada Immigration and Visa Discussion Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Canada Immigration Topics > Family Class Sponsorship
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - visa extension and outland application
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

visa extension and outland application

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
dpenabill View Drop Down
Top Member
Top Member


Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 6407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dpenabill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 6:12am
Ahh the nuances of language.

The gist of it is clear.

The terms, though, may be the object of quibbling.

A "dissolved" marriage is (as I understand the use of the terms) a legality, a term of art so to say, which the requires the issuance and filing of a judicial decree in Canada and the U.S.

A person who is still "legally" married can be in a common-law relationship with another for the purposes of immigration if the marriage relationship was terminated prior to the commencement of the cohabitation in a conjugal relationship with the common-law partner; note, though, that I believe CIC approaches such situations with much skepticism unless there is a legal impediment to the person's divorce (in which case I believe they still apply more scrutiny but not necessarily so skeptically). In particular, while I am not sure, it is my impression that given the relative ease (emphasis on relative, since it is not really "easy") of obtaining a divorce (a decree dissolving the marriage) in Canada, a Canadian claiming a common-law relationship while still legally married better have very stong evidence of both the in fact termination of a conjugal relationship with the spouse as well as the interdependency and commingling of affairs while cohabitating in a conjugal relationship with the putative common-law partner.

Not sure what effect it would have if the early part of the period of time for establishing the requisite cohabitation in a common-law relationship was while one partner was still legally married so long as there was a final divorce prior to the date the app was submitted; I suspect a degree of more scrutiny but not necessarily strong skepticism.

It should be emphasized that what "common-law" means, and what legal effects it has, varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and depending on the purpose or context in which it arises. This is to say that CIC has its own definition and that is the definition that counts for immigration purposes -- that does not change the couple's status for any other purpose in any other place. And the reverse is also true: even if a relationship fully meets the terms of what constitutes "common-law" in the jurisdiction where the couple has been staying, that bears little or no weight relative to CIC's purposes; the CIC definition is the one that counts.
Bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, or When in doubt, follow the instructions. Otherwise, follow the instructions.



BTW: Not an expert, not a Can. lawyer, never worked in immigration
Back to Top
whoopi83 View Drop Down
New Member
New Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Location: BC
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote whoopi83 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 7:34am
Originally posted by dpenabill dpenabill wrote:

Ahh the nuances of language.

The gist of it is clear.

The terms, though, may be the object of quibbling.

A "dissolved" marriage is (as I understand the use of the terms) a legality, a term of art so to say, which the requires the issuance and filing of a judicial decree in Canada and the U.S.

A person who is still "legally" married can be in a common-law relationship with another for the purposes of immigration if the marriage relationship was terminated prior to the commencement of the cohabitation in a conjugal relationship with the common-law partner; note, though, that I believe CIC approaches such situations with much skepticism unless there is a legal impediment to the person's divorce (in which case I believe they still apply more scrutiny but not necessarily so skeptically). In particular, while I am not sure, it is my impression that given the relative ease (emphasis on relative, since it is not really "easy") of obtaining a divorce (a decree dissolving the marriage) in Canada, a Canadian claiming a common-law relationship while still legally married better have very stong evidence of both the in fact termination of a conjugal relationship with the spouse as well as the interdependency and commingling of affairs while cohabitating in a conjugal relationship with the putative common-law partner.

Not sure what effect it would have if the early part of the period of time for establishing the requisite cohabitation in a common-law relationship was while one partner was still legally married so long as there was a final divorce prior to the date the app was submitted; I suspect a degree of more scrutiny but not necessarily strong skepticism.

It should be emphasized that what "common-law" means, and what legal effects it has, varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and depending on the purpose or context in which it arises. This is to say that CIC has its own definition and that is the definition that counts for immigration purposes -- that does not change the couple's status for any other purpose in any other place. And the reverse is also true: even if a relationship fully meets the terms of what constitutes "common-law" in the jurisdiction where the couple has been staying, that bears little or no weight relative to CIC's purposes; the CIC definition is the one that counts.
 
 
dpenabill - I agree with your post - just to clarify our actual situation: the sponsor and PR applicant had been living together for 3 years.  UK divorce law requires that a marriage has broken down irretrievably and to establish this one must show: adultery or, unreasonable behaviour or, desertion or, 2 yr seperation or, 5 year seperation (uncontestable).  Petition was filed with the court after 2 years with both parties consent.  The court has a "backlog" and routine cases are taking months and months... (14 months to decree nisi) but my point is that the only document we sent with the application package was a copy of the petition (plus a copy of the relevant section from the OP2 manual).  We of course supplied ample "evidence" to support our cohabitation claim including letters from all family members. 
 
CPC-M approved the sponsor the same day and London approved the PR applicant in 7 working days (from open file to PPR).  This leads me to believe that provided the correct evidence is included in the application AND the relationship is shown (as much as possible) to be genuine, it can be faster (or not Confused) than legally married couples who may have trouble providing what CIC require.
 
OR perhaps we were just lucky; the rest of the year has been ****!  Ouch
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
sami55 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Location: hidden
Status: Offline
Points: 594
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sami55 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 10:30pm
PLEASE NOTE WELL... THE ABOVE BACKGROUND facts APPLy TO WHOOPI83 only not me.

I AM SAMI55   I am THE APPLICANT man from uk in a GENUINE, CLOSE, long term and continuing relatioship with canadian sponsor since this april = 7 months, although we have been in contact with each other a bit longer then that..
my canadian girl friend (sponsor)was desereted in uk,by her husband in 2002, completely disappeared in UK, after only a few months of euphemeral marriage in 2002. this was accepted by the canadian immigration when she came here as a skilled worker in march 2008. so SHE HAS seven years of TOTAL and iretrievable breakdown in the marriage and she has filed for divorce in AUGUST 2009. our relation is very genuine indeed.
my fiancee's divorce is at a stage where div order is expected on 05 january (then 31 days later = divorce cert= 05 Feb ) you need that certificate to do all the procedures involved in getting married.. i need auth and opinion on MY uk divorce to get the licence which is needed to book the wedding ceremony...too many long procedures in beauracracy and during snow..so we may not be able to marry before my visa ends in 23 feb. too many balls are up in the air,

one lawyer said i could go to uk and get married over the telephone ..
can any one please comment on this please..
i think common law will be a very remote possibility for me.the acrobatics involved in that will be too much for my situation..i dont like the immigration in control of the safety net...
i am also ruling out going to us to get married because she has indian passport with canadian PR... we can both go to uk or india..prob is she cant any more time off work..

i know no act is easy in the immigration circus but please suggest the safest route, least painful course.

remember the I O strongly suspected relationship last time i came here in nov.....and i have a petty assault against me in uk, but that is a spent conviction...he gave me just a 4 months visitor record suggests he has an eye on me..

can i extend my visitor visa on the INTENT to sponsor me? on the basis of applying for marriage licence...with an impending marriage booking?
thats the only thing thats missing, a qualifying relationship..everything elase i have in abundance and provable..
help



Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down