Filipiniana News – February 2011
RHYME & REASON
In this so-called month of love, it may be
appropriate to review some basic issues and a recent change in Canada’s
immigration laws and regulations relating to spousal sponsorship applications.
Types of Relationship Eligible Under a Spousal Sponsorship Application
There are three different types of
partnerships that could qualify under the spousal sponsorship class: spouses, common-law partners and conjugal
partners.
Spouses are couples who are validly married
in the jurisdiction where the marriage was celebrated. To prove the genuineness of the marriage,
the sponsor and applicant must provide documentary evidence such as wedding
photos, invitations, reference letters, love letters to each other, etc.. The Canadian or permanent resident can
sponsor the spouse even a day after getting married so long as the genuineness
of the marriage is adequately proved.
Common-law partners refer to couples living
together in a committed relationship without getting married. They can be considered common-law partners
from day one. For purposes of immigration sponsorship however,
common-law partners must have lived together for at least a year to
qualify. This must be proven by a declaration of common-law
union, joint documents (bank accounts, apartment lease, insurance
beneficiary designation, income tax returns, etc.). The burden of proving
common-law status for at least a year is on the applicants so the more
evidentiary documents are submitted, the better.
Conjugal partners refer to couples in a
committed relationship, at the same level of commitment as spouses and
common-law partners, but who are prevented from marrying or living together by
some compelling circumstances - e.g. laws prohibiting same sex union in
ultra-conservative countries, war, detention, etc.. This is much
more difficult to prove and is thus rarely approved as basis for an immigration
sponsorship.
Any of the above relationships can be a
heterosexual or a homosexual partnership.
Recent Regulatory Change
The main issue in a spousal sponsorship
application has been and still is, the genuine and continuing nature of a
marital, common-law or conjugal relationship.
The previous immigration regulations provided that a person will not be
considered a spouse if the marriage, common-law or conjugal partnership is not
genuine AND entered into primarily to acquire an immigration privilege. The recent regulatory change (which took
effect in September 2010) provides that
a person will not be considered a spouse if the relationship was entered into
primarily to acquire an immigration privilege OR is not genuine. While seemingly innocuous, the simple change
of the conjunctive word from “and” to “or” could actually have a significant
impact on spousal sponsorship applications.
That is, applicants will have an even greater burden of proving both the
genuineness and the lack of a primary intent to obtain an immigration
privilege. Previously, if a marriage or
relationship is found to be genuine, the conclusion necessarily follows that it
was not entered into primarily for an immigration purpose. Now, a sponsorship applicant in a genuine
relationship may still be refused if the reviewing officer concludes that the
primary purpose of the marriage or
partnership was to obtain an immigration privilege.
Overseas versus Inland
Applications
The other avenue is via the Spouse or
Common-law Partner in Canada class. As
the name implies, this sponsorship is allowed only for spouses and common-law
partners (and not for conjugal partners).
This type of application assumes that the spouses or common-law partners
are already living together in Canada and that it will create undue hardship if
the application is processed overseas.
Out of status spouses may also be sponsored under this category. Please note however, that in case the
application is refused, there is no right of appeal. The only remedy after a refusal is the filing
of an Application for Leave and Judicial Review with the Federal Court. A positive decision in the Federal Court
application can only, at best, result in a quashing of the decision but that
the matter will be sent back to CIC for a redetermination by another visa
officer. There have been instances where
the redetermination still led to a negative decision.
Please note that the above are meant for
informational purposes only and not to provide specific legal advice. To discuss your specific questions and
concerns in these matters, please consult a trusted immigration counsel.
The author is an immigration lawyer in Toronto and may be reached at
deanna@santoslaw.ca.
Comments
Post a Comment