Jelena

I was just going through new Immigration law, and found a term that I do not
understand completely. Maybe somebody can help me ...

Can somebody define the term "conjugal partner"? Is it future common-law partner ?
Fiancee ? Or both ?

Jelena

cml

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:31:31 GMT, Jelena <[email protected]> wrote:

Put in rather bluntly, it's someone you have sex with.

    >I was just going through new Immigration law, and found a term that I do not
    >understand completely. Maybe somebody can help me ...
    >
    >Can somebody define the term "conjugal partner"? Is it future common-law partner ?
    >Fiancee ? Or both ?
    >
    >Jelena

Webimmigration.

Hi:

The regulations state, "conjugal partner" means, in relation to a sponsor, a foreign
national residing outside Canada who is in a conjugal relationship with the sponsor
and has been in taht relationship for a period of at least one year.

The standard definition for Conjugal means "married state" or "a couple".

Yours truly, Ingrid Y. Chen, B.A., LL.B.
_____________________
Webimmigration.com 225-141 Bannatyne Ave. E. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 0R3 Tel:
1-204-943-3303 Fax: 1-204-943-2625 Email: [email protected] Visit our website
at: www.webimmigration.com

"Jelena" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > I was just going through new Immigration law, and found a term that I do not
    > understand completely. Maybe somebody can help me ...
    >
    > Can somebody define the term "conjugal partner"? Is it future common-law partner ?
    > Fiancee ? Or both ?
    >
    > Jelena

Jason Brown

    > Put in rather bluntly, it's someone you have sex with.
    >
Well then, in my case there are dozens... and still going strong.!!!

Dajino

Again, how do we define "couple"? How will the immigration officer define a "couple"?
If we have just promised to each other to be married and live together when we are
authorized to be together by the immigration, are we defined as a "couple" by the
mere reason of our hope of being one eventually in reality? I think the new law just
gave teeth to an administrative clerk to make a decision of his/her own of what
he/she considers a "couple" to be...

"WebImmigration.Com" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Hi:
    >
    > The regulations state, "conjugal partner" means, in relation to a sponsor,
a
    > foreign national residing outside Canada who is in a conjugal relationship with the
    > sponsor and has been in taht relationship for a period of at
least
    > one year.
    >
    > The standard definition for Conjugal means "married state" or "a couple".
    >
    > Yours truly, Ingrid Y. Chen, B.A., LL.B.
    > _____________________
    > Webimmigration.com 225-141 Bannatyne Ave. E. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 0R3 Tel:
    > 1-204-943-3303 Fax: 1-204-943-2625 Email: [email protected] Visit our website
    > at: www.webimmigration.com
    >
    > "Jelena" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > I was just going through new Immigration law, and found a term that I do not
    > > understand completely. Maybe somebody can help me ...
    > >
    > > Can somebody define the term "conjugal partner"? Is it future common-law partner
    > > ? Fiancee ? Or both ?
    > >
    > > Jelena
    >

The Wizzard

It says in the regulations at the top unde rteh definitions of terms used in the
regulations that the reason they chose the 'conjugal partner' definition is because
'common law' relationships vary depending on the country, for example there are US
states that do not recognise it and some that do and some countries have different
rules about it, so CIC decided it was not a comprehensive enough term so they defined
it in the regulations that the common law term meant a conjugal relationship where
the couple has lived together for at least a year. This is in essence the most common
definition of a common law marriage anyway such is teh case i believe in English
common law that a common law marriage is living together as 'man and wife' for more
than a year. It does throw open a bit i suppose the peopel who will qualify but then
again it is up to the applicants to prove the 'bona fide' of the relationship. Even
married people like myself have to provide evidence of the relationship so i presume
it will be no different for a common law case. The problem as with all of them is
that anyone can claim to be anything, so you have to prove it. So if you tell them
well he is my boyfriend and we have been together for 3 years but never lived
together you will have to prove that is true and that you have existed for over a
year as a couple and been trated as such by society at large, such things as shared
bills and joint bank accounts and things that are normal to a relationship of that
nature. I presume however that if you have never lived together this becomes more
difficult, however if the reason you have not lived together is because of distance
then that i am sure is understandable as its in the very nature of immigration, and
so other evidence of relationship is appropriate such as letters and photographs of
you together on visits and airline tickets showing you regularly see each other etc.
I tihnk the main reason they introduced this category was for same sex couples who
cannot get legally married and so have always been forced down the H&C route and this
now gives them validity.

Drew

Jelena

Thanks, this is very helpful ...

Jelena

The Wizzard wrote:

    > It says in the regulations at the top unde rteh definitions of terms used in the
    > regulations that the reason they chose the 'conjugal partner' definition is because
    > 'common law' relationships vary depending on the country, for example there are US
    > states that do not recognise it and some that do and some countries have different
    > rules about it, so CIC decided it was not a comprehensive enough term so they
    > defined it in the regulations that the common law term meant a conjugal
    > relationship where the couple has lived together for at least a year. This is in
    > essence the most common definition of a common law marriage anyway such is teh case
    > i believe in English common law that a common law marriage is living together as
    > 'man and wife' for more than a year. It does throw open a bit i suppose the peopel
    > who will qualify but then again it is up to the applicants to prove the 'bona fide'
    > of the relationship. Even married people like myself have to provide evidence of
    > the relationship so i presume it will be no different for a common law case. The
    > problem as with all of them is that anyone can claim to be anything, so you have to
    > prove it. So if you tell them well he is my boyfriend and we have been together for
    > 3 years but never lived together you will have to prove that is true and that you
    > have existed for over a year as a couple and been trated as such by society at
    > large, such things as shared bills and joint bank accounts and things that are
    > normal to a relationship of that nature. I presume however that if you have never
    > lived together this becomes more difficult, however if the reason you have not
    > lived together is because of distance then that i am sure is understandable as its
    > in the very nature of immigration, and so other evidence of relationship is
    > appropriate such as letters and photographs of you together on visits and airline
    > tickets showing you regularly see each other etc. I tihnk the main reason they
    > introduced this category was for same sex couples who cannot get legally married
    > and so have always been forced down the H&C route and this now gives them validity.
    >
    > Drew
    >