sharkus

Does anyone know if Immigration Canada would consider co-ownership of a pet cat as proof of an on-going and commited relationship for a spousal (in canada) sponsorship application where I'm being sponsored by my common-law parter who is a Canadian citizen

el_richo

As long as you can prove you've both been living together in a conjugal relationship, with the cat, for at least 12 months, i don't see why not.

Aviator

So long as you're both on the birth certificate

joinerboy

wonder if the immigration officer will have had consider pet ownership as proof of common-law partnership before 8 out of 10 said they had ...............
Do you have a joint bank account , shared house hold bills , a will , any thing on these lines should help.
regards
Joinerboy

PMM

Hi

QUOTE=joinerboy;8028286]wonder if the immigration officer will have had consider pet ownership as proof of common-law partnership before 8 out of 10 said they had ...............
Do you have a joint bank account , shared house hold bills , a will , any thing on these lines should help.
regards
Joinerboy[/QUOTE]

Methinks that the OP is putting every one on. There was an asylum case in the UK where a Bolivian was being removed from the UK but the Refugee judge ruled that since he and his girlfriend had jointly acquired a cat, this was evidence of his establishment. see: http://trak.in/news/immigrant-allowe...pet-cat/15108/

"The Bolivian’s identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy.

The ruling is believed to have cost the taxpayer several thousand pounds.

Delivering her decision on the case, Judith Gleeson, a senior immigration judge, joked in the official written ruling that the cat “need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice”."

sharkus

Yes, I know, I'm VERY childish but when I read the story that PMM links to I thought I'd post up the question for a giggle.

It just smacks of absolute absurdity. If the chap was originally in the UK legally and was able to maintain temporary status for at least two years, then he could/should have applied for PR via the SET(M) (think it's SET(M) route which seems to be similar to the spousal/common-law sponsorship route you'd use here.

The article I read gave very little detail on the status of his partner, eg; is she PR or citizen of the UK, and also why did he overstay his temp visa and did not renew it. Regardless, if he was there illegally, be it through an original illegal entry, or by failing to maintain status then I have little sympathy for him and feel he should be deported back to Bolivia. I'm sorry, but using a pet as an indicator of being settled is crazy as it is setting a very dangerous precedent. This case WILL be referred to in other cases, and more taxpayer money will be wasted with appeals due to people saying "Well XXX's case was allowed due to them having a pet, you have refused mine, I'm appealing against that decision". It's a farce.

el_richo

Aaaaah you got us. Although i don't usually fall for these types of shenanigans but today my mind has been clouded over and a little moggy.

Bali2010