matsuki wrote:by law, if you wife up here, you are required to change your visa status to spousal visa.
There is such a thing as stupid lawyers who don't know the basics of the area of law they cover. I can't say for certain, but I think matsuki may have found one.
I haven't seen one iota of evidence that if you qualify for two different visas, you're required to pick one over the other, which is what that lawyer is saying. I've read much of the immigration law and all the official MOJ FAQs multiple times, in original language, over the years. Like wagyl, I'll say there is nothing to back this up in writing, and it would create weird contradictions (like PR having to switch to a spouse visa). Also, I know of countless counterexamples, though maybe all those people were accidentally breaking the law.
The best counterexample I can think of is somebody who was on a business investor visa for years, staying on it well after getting married. I know this person had interactions with immigration about a matter in which his business investor status was quite important. They were definitely aware his spouse was Japanese, and the entire process went through with no issues whatsoever. There was no insinuation that he needed to switch to a spouse visa.
It's also bizarre to think that somebody with "better" visas (e.g. PR or the nice shiny Highly Skilled Professional visa) would be required to step down to a spouse visa if they got married. And does the order matter? I was married when I got PR. But if I had gotten PR first, then gotten married, would I have lost my PR and been required to switch to a spouse visa?
On the other hand... I have heard that when applying for PR and using marriage as one of the qualifications, it's not good enough to just be married. You have to be married and on a spouse visa in order to make the jump to PR based on your marriage. I know somebody whose PR was delayed because he was long married, but not on a spouse visa. He had to switch to a spouse visa, wait a while, then apply for PR. Matsuki, is it possible this is what your lawyer is talking about? I hate to say it, but this may be a case of "you get what you pay for".