Proving domicile when not living in the U.S.

[NikLR 13,228]

1 hour ago, canadavisa22 said:

#1 is not true. I've been in contact with people who have just recently had their interview at Montreal where both people lived in Canada until the time of the interview and they were approved based on having a signed lease for an apartment.

 

In fact, they also had a job letter, but the Consulate was more concerned with their living arrangements than anything else. They were going to be denied until they provided the leased they had signed.

 

It is possible, and likely, that you will receive your immigrant visa as long as you have living arrangements set up. With that said, a lease seems to be the bar the Consulate wants and not just a letter from family. You don't necessarily have to move back ahead of your spouse in order to satisfy the domicile requirement. 

People have also been denied for a lease and no job. 

[canadavisa22 202]

6 hours ago, NikLR said:

People have also been denied for a lease and no job. 

My guess is that would have more to do with the overall financial situation of the couple involved.

 

The point was though, that no job does not mean no visa. That should be clarified for people reading this thread in the future.

[NikLR 13,228]

3 hours ago, canadavisa22 said:

My guess is that would have more to do with the overall financial situation of the couple involved.

 

The point was though, that no job does not mean no visa. That should be clarified for people reading this thread in the future.

Perhaps, but as with anything else, a qualified joint sponsor trumps their personal financial limitations.  So it doesnt matter. 

In the end, best practice is for the USC to move back and establish domicile by interview. 

[darth vader 133]

9 hours ago, NikLR said:

Perhaps, but as with anything else, a qualified joint sponsor trumps their personal financial limitations.  So it doesnt matter. 

In the end, best practice is for the USC to move back and establish domicile by interview. 

It may be best practice but usually intent to domicile in Montreal is not as stringent as some folks on this forum would like you to believe. It highly depends on the circumstances. If you have been living in Canada for 10 years with Canadian born kids and only show up to interview with a lease - ummm prob not enough.

 

I am yet to see a case where someone had a lease agreement (not with their parents, but a real lease payed for already), and a job offer with a start date mentioned be given 221g. If you know such a case, please share.

 

Otherwise, I'd say play to your stregths, even if you have Canadian kids and have been living in Canada for 10 years. Get your kids registered in U.S. schools, get a lease, get a job offer, move your funds to U.S. and chances are more than likely you will be fine.

 

Again don't listen to generic, best-case advice of moving ahead if it doesn't suit you. Play to your strengths, worst case they ask you for domicile in which case you can move. It will take only 2-3 months to get approved in that case. Still better than being separated for several months if you move ahead.

Edited November 7, 2019 by darth vader

[darth vader 133]

19 hours ago, NikLR said:

People have also been denied for a lease and no job. 

Has anyone been denied for a lease and a job offer?

[canadavisa22 202]

35 minutes ago, darth vader said:

It may be best practice but usually intent to domicile in Montreal is not as stringent as some folks on this forum would like you to believe. It highly depends on the circumstances. If you have been living in Canada for 10 years with Canadian born kids and only show up to interview with a lease - ummm prob not enough.

 

I am yet to see a case where someone had a lease agreement (not with their parents, but a real lease payed for already), and a job offer with a start date mentioned be given 221g. If you know such a case, please share.

 

Otherwise, I'd say play to your stregths, even if you have Canadian kids and have been living in Canada for 10 years. Get your kids registered in U.S. schools, get a lease, get a job offer, move your funds to U.S. and chances are more than likely you will be fine.

 

Again don't listen to generic, best-case advice of moving ahead if it doesn't suit you. Play to your strengths, worst case they ask you for domicile in which case you can move. It will take only 2-3 months to get approved in that case. Still better than being separated for several months if you move ahead.

This is my case, so I'll be a test subject for this thread in a few months time. Been here about 8 years and have a child but we have gotten their US citizenship.

 

Our plan is to move together and we will have a lease in place (with family but paying a small monthly amount) but no job offer or joint sponsor. We more than qualify based on our assets.

 

If Montreal decides that is not enough, then my USC spouse will move ahead and get a job to satisfy them. We're not in such a terrible rush that it's necessary to separate ourselves if we don't have to. So, we will find out just how strict Montreal can be on this matter.

Edited November 7, 2019 by canadavisa22

[darth vader 133]

10 minutes ago, canadavisa22 said:

This is my case,l so I'll be a test subject for this thread in a few months time. Been here about 8 years and have a child but we have gotten their US citizenship.

 

Our plan is to move together and we will have a lease in place (with family but paying a small monthly amount) but no job offer or joint sponsor. We more than qualify based on our assets.

 

If Montreal decides that is not enough, then my USC spouse will move ahead and get a job to satisfy them. We're not in such a terrible rush that it's necessary to separate ourselves if we don't have to. So, we will find out just how strict Montreal can be on this matter.

Would be interesting to see if they force your USC spouse to move ahead. Good luck!

Edited November 7, 2019 by darth vader

[gad33 47]

This is what Montreal wants in order of preference

1. USC is living in the US and can prove domicile

2. USC has a job and a place to live. (Lease or house purchase.)

3. USC has a job.

4. USC has somewhere to live.

 

Yes there are people who have shown minimum proof but they are the exception and yes there have been cases where the USC has had to return to the US before a visa has been issued.

Assets have nothing to do with this part of the approval.

[darth vader 133]

4 minutes ago, gad33 said:

This is what Montreal wants in order of preference

1. USC is living in the US and can prove domicile

2. USC has a job and a place to live. (Lease or house purchase.)

3. USC has a job.

4. USC has somewhere to live.

 

Yes there are people who have shown minimum proof but they are the exception and yes there have been cases where the USC has had to return to the US before a visa has been issued.

Assets have nothing to do with this part of the approval.

 

Absolutely agree. Have you ever seen a case which had both a job and a place to live but was still given a 221g and asked to move ahead of their spouse?

Edited November 7, 2019 by darth vader

[canadavisa22 202]

1 hour ago, gad33 said:

This is what Montreal wants in order of preference

1. USC is living in the US and can prove domicile

2. USC has a job and a place to live. (Lease or house purchase.)

3. USC has a job.

4. USC has somewhere to live.

 

Yes there are people who have shown minimum proof but they are the exception and yes there have been cases where the USC has had to return to the US before a visa has been issued.

Assets have nothing to do with this part of the approval.

The reference to assets in my case was just to show how we'd be financially capable without a joint sponsor, but yes domicile is a different matter entirely. I just find sometimes on the forum people will read you have no job and say you need a joint sponsor, so it was, ironically, a way to keep things on topic.

 

We'll see how it goes. Worst case we have family in another part of the country who could likely offer employment if needed. Our main goal is just to reduce separation because we have a young child. Will post an update in a few months. Only just got to NVC now!

[NikLR 13,228]

15 hours ago, darth vader said:

 

Absolutely agree. Have you ever seen a case which had both a job and a place to live but was still given a 221g and asked to move ahead of their spouse?

Yes but trying to find it is very difficult due to the many changes that have been in this forum including a server move.  They weren't asked to move, you never are. You are told you dont satisfy domicile. 

[NikLR 13,228]

 

Cant sleep.  Started looking oldest to newest.  

 

[canadavisa22 202]

5 hours ago, NikLR said:

 

Cant sleep.  Started looking oldest to newest.  

 

NikLR, I know you know all of the information below, but this is intended for anyone reading this in the future:

 

I've been combing through a lot of information on the forum and the biggest issue I see is people mixing up the types of domicile they're trying to prove. The advice given is based on the USC moving to the US ahead of the spouse but for those that don't want to be separated, they misunderstand the concept of domicile and try to prove they've maintained it while living abroad. 

 

That's exactly what happened to OP in that case. OP was trying to prove that their spouse was only temporarily living in Canada and maintained domicile in the US despite being out of the country for over 18 months. The CO disagreed and believed they didn't maintain their US residency because of how long they had been out of the country. They then started mixing up proof of what they were trying to prove to the CO.

 

If OP's spouse had just moved back to the US ahead of the interview, none of this would have happened. But they tried to stay together in Canada and prove that they maintained their US domicile. That basically can't happen if you're planning to stay with your spouse abroad. You have to instead show the CO proof you intend to re-establish domicile. For anyone reading this in the future, please understand the distinction. Bank accounts, voter registration cards or credit cards prove nothing of your intent to re-establish domicile.

 

If you plan to move with your spouse at the same time then Montreal first wants a firm lease (better than a letter from relative) and second would like a job offer, but more importance (from what I've heard from people that have interviewed) is placed on living arrangements. Outside of those two things all you can add is supplemental information to help form the totality of your case which will be considered by the CO. Things like moving quotes or establishing contact with schools/daycares to register children probably won't move the needle but it's at least better to have them prepared than not in case you have a particular CO that wants more proof.

AND, in a worst case scenario, if the CO feels you haven't proved intention to re-establish domicile, then you'll just have to move ahead of your spouse and endure the separation and re-send your evidence. But it's really important people understand the difference between the types of domicile because I think that's where everyone gets incredibly mixed up.

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by canadavisa22

[gad33 47]

23 hours ago, darth vader said:

 

Absolutely agree. Have you ever seen a case which had both a job and a place to live but was still given a 221g and asked to move ahead of their spouse?

As you know and I have said, this thread is big. But I remember a case where the petitioner thought their spouse would never get their visa and I joked that the con officer wouldn't be happy until they received a photo of the USC literally crossing the border.

[gad33 47]

2 hours ago, canadavisa22 said:

NikLR, I know you know all of the information below, but this is intended for anyone reading this in the future:

 

I've been combing through a lot of information on the forum and the biggest issue I see is people mixing up the types of domicile they're trying to prove. The advice given is based on the USC moving to the US ahead of the spouse but for those that don't want to be separated, they misunderstand the concept of domicile and try to prove they've maintained it while living abroad. 

 

That's exactly what happened to OP in that case. OP was trying to prove that their spouse was only temporarily living in Canada and maintained domicile in the US despite being out of the country for over 18 months. The CO disagreed and believed they didn't maintain their US residency because of how long they had been out of the country. They then started mixing up proof of what they were trying to prove to the CO.

 

If you plan to move with your spouse at the same time then Montreal first wants a firm lease (better than a letter from relative) and second would like a job offer, but more importance (from what I've heard from people that have interviewed) is placed on living arrangements. Outside of those two things all you can add is supplemental information to help form the totality of your case which will be considered by the CO. Things like moving quotes or establishing contact with schools/daycares to register children probably won't move the needle but it's at least better to have them prepared than not in case you have a particular CO that wants more proof.

AND, in a worst case scenario, if the CO feels you haven't proved intention to re-establish domicile, then you'll just have to move ahead of your spouse and endure the separation and re-send your evidence. But it's really important people understand the difference between the types of domicile because I think that's where everyone gets incredibly mixed up.

 

I don't agree with this - if the USC is not going to move back to the US before the interview, then their preference is for a job offer.

 

Also let's me clear on the lease. Even if you are going to be living with family for zero rent, a formal lease agreement is acceptable whereas a letter stating the same information may not be. I don't want people thinking that there has to be an arm's length rental.