conjugal partner inconsistency
 

Hello, I have a question about applying to sponsor a conjugal partner.

In form IMM1344EA.pdf, section E asks eligibility questions, all of which
must be answered "yes" for the application to be valid. But the third
question reads:

    > Are you sponsoring a member of the family class or a member of the
    > spouse or common-law partner in Canada class?

there's no mention here of the conjugal partner category. Is this just an
oversight, or perhaps are conjugal partners contained in the other
category? Otherwise, if conjugal partners are really excluded, I don't
know why there's even such a category... In form 3900E.pdf, it seems that
conjugal partners are a separate category but just as valid. Any help
appreciated! Thanks --Jerry

Re: conjugal partner inconsistency
 

Conjugal partners are not a separate category - they are members of Family
class. Read here:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor2-227/sec117.html

But they are not included in the spouse or common-law partner in Canada
class.

--

../..

Andrew Miller
Immigration Consultant
Vancouver, British Columbia
email: [email protected]
(delete REMOVE from the above address before sending email)
________________________________


"Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Hello, I have a question about applying to sponsor a conjugal partner.
    > In form IMM1344EA.pdf, section E asks eligibility questions, all of which
    > must be answered "yes" for the application to be valid. But the third
    > question reads:
    > > Are you sponsoring a member of the family class or a member of the
    > > spouse or common-law partner in Canada class?
    > there's no mention here of the conjugal partner category. Is this just an
    > oversight, or perhaps are conjugal partners contained in the other
    > category? Otherwise, if conjugal partners are really excluded, I don't
    > know why there's even such a category... In form 3900E.pdf, it seems that
    > conjugal partners are a separate category but just as valid. Any help
    > appreciated! Thanks --Jerry