PR renewal with Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) Grounds - 2022

[canuck78]

Overall: @canadabound1234 . . . in regards to "I am trying to figure out if I can still get back to Canada and keep my PR. So the effort is on."

Note: the only way to "figure" it out is to come and see how it goes, make the move and settle here, hoping to avoid being Reported, and dealing with that if it happens.





Mostly a reminder: if it comes down to making an "argument," like a lawyer might present a defense to a judge or jury, that's more or less the long shot, not good odds. Moreover, just coming across as making-an-argument rather often tends to put-off law enforcement officials, and CBSA border officials are law enforcement (note, for example, even though CBSA border officials engage in immigration they are part of the Ministry of Public Safety, as in dey's da cops). Impressions matter.

It helps, and it can help a lot, to prepare and orient what a PR in breach will present (will say, and in some circumstances what supporting documents to be shown) if and when the situation at the border reaches a stage in which the traveler-PR needs to more specifically make the H&C case. And I realize it may not be clear that there is a difference between an approach that "makes" the case versus an approach that "argues" the case. But there is a real difference.

Better approach: more or less EXPLAINING one's situation, how and why the move to Canada was delayed, in simple terms focused on particular facts, and doing do so in the context of the plan to move to Canada and how it was delayed.

Save the strenuous arguments for the appeal and the IAD, if that becomes necessary, and this is better done by a lawyer who understands the art of persuasion at least as well as the lawyer understands the law, the rules, and how they work. But hope it does not go there. As I have oft reiterated, and emphasized, the best chance the PR in breach has, IF asked (no need to go into unless asked), is to be prepared to simply explain his or her story about planning to come to Canada and the reasons why that has been delayed, and hope for a waive through without any formal RO compliance examination, without any need to "make" a formal H&C case.

In this forum there is a lot of emphasis on the more or less formalities of making the H&C cases. For good reason, because ultimately that will determine the outcome if and when there is a formal RO compliance examination. So, for example, if the new, soft-landed PR whose move to Canada got delayed beyond the three year window the RO allows, was delayed because of personal financial or career decisions, the general consensus in the forum is that is not a good H&C reason (and quite a few here erroneous claim it is not a H&C reason at all). And that is true in a formal H&C assessment, and particularly so in the appeal before the IAD.

But for the PR in breach being asked questions at the Port-of-Entry regarding why they were abroad or why they did not come to Canada sooner, just honestly explaining what the plan was, how this financial or job situation affected when, in THEIR circumstances, they were ready to make the move, just saying, sort of, just doing the best I could to make this move to get to Canada to settle here, nothing fancy, just dealing with life to get here, that can go a long way (during PoE questioning) toward making-the-case to be allowed to keep PR status . . . even though it will NOT work well as an "argument."

Bringing this to Covid-19 and its variants. There seems to be some here hanging a lot on the distinction between what definitively precludes travel and what constitutes degrees of difficulty traveling. It's not just semantics. CAN NOT travel, of course, is different from CHOOSING NOT to travel because of the difficulties of traveling. The former, something that definitively stops a person from traveling, something the person has no control over, is a for-sure H&C reason that will carry a lot of weight in determining if a PR should be allowed to keep PR status despite a breach of the RO. In contrast, what amounts to a personal choice tends to have a lot less influence. But the latter can and often will carry some positive weight in favour of allowing H&C relief, and how much positive weight is variable. And for some reason there are a number of forum participants who minimize this, and more than a few who occasionally outright dismiss it.

The more difficulty involved, even if well short of a firm block from traveling, will generally carry more positive H&C weight. H&C factors are NOT yes/no calculations. They are weighed with sliding gradations, ranging from a little positive weight to a lot of positive weight. They are relative. They are highly contextual. They are not just about being humane, but they are explicitly COMPASSIONATE.

The difficulty of relocating to Canada during the last two plus years given the situation with Covid and the global pandemic is overwhelmingly obvious. So obvious it appears that this has been a huge factor in why border officials have been remarkably more lenient toward returning Canadians who have failed to meet their PR Residency Obligation.

The shade side of this, of course, is that despite more variants and sub-variants, another wave of infection, the extent of this recent leniency is bound to be declining.

The sunny side, still, is that H&C relief, and border control decisions in effect allowing affected Canadians (PRs in breach of the RO) to remain Canadians, is oriented to what is COMPASSIONATE. The system is intentionally flexible and to a significant extent lenient. But this brings things back around to the difference between presenting/making a case versus an "argument" for relief. Who deserves "compassion," at least in an informal context (like PoE screening), is not readily measured by a checklist.

I do not mean to suggest anyone rely on H&C relief. Any PR in breach of the RO is at RISK. To reduce their risk, any PR in breach should make an effort to get to Canada to settle, and STAY, as soon as practically feasible. If keeping PR status is a priority. But in regards to how to approach border officials, just explaining how it is, how the plan to come was delayed, in straight, simple, honest terms, that is generally the best one can do.

You will likely need more substantial proof of why you couldn’t meet your RO/move to Canada earlier if applying for PR card renewal based on H&C while already inside Canada versus providing a reason and/or proof of why you couldn’t meet your RO at the POE when moving to Canada. Only you know whether your family has travelled during Covid, have taken flights, whether you’ve been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible even though many States have not required masking. If you’ve continued to live very sheltered hyper vigilant lives, have masked at school/daycare and work, etc. then you’ll have more of an argument that moving would have gone against all the strict policies you’d put in place to protect your family.

 

[dpenabill]

You will likely need more substantial proof of why you couldn’t meet your RO/move to Canada earlier if applying for PR card renewal based on H&C while already inside Canada versus providing a reason and/or proof of why you couldn’t meet your RO at the POE when moving to Canada. Only you know whether your family has travelled during Covid, have taken flights, whether you’ve been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible even though many States have not required masking. If you’ve continued to live very sheltered hyper vigilant lives, have masked at school/daycare and work, etc. then you’ll have more of an argument that moving would have gone against all the strict policies you’d put in place to protect your family.

I disagree with this. Quite a lot actually. And not just because it is largely irrelevant, given that my post (you quote) was NOT about making a PR card application at all (it was addressing the PoE questioning that @canadabound1234 may be facing).

Even in regards to the OP's situation, there is NO indication that the OP has been asked for any additional details in regards to protective measures taken to avoid Covid.

And frankly there is no reason to anticipate there will be such questioning that challenges either the OP (in the course of processing the OP's PR card application) or @canadabound1234 in a PoE screening, in regards to such details about their Covid-avoidance behavior.

Moreover, as I have noted, and more importantly as is readily apparent in the anecdotal reporting, it is clear that border officials have been exercising broader discretion and outright leniency that is undoubtedly based on the recognition that Covid and the pandemic have imposed very substantial difficulties in relocating internationally during the last two plus years. And that this has been without digging into details like whether the individual PR has "been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible," or if they have "masked at school/daycare and work."

Beyond that, even in the PR card application context, "arguments" regarding H&C factors generally have less sway than the general equities, and in many if not most cases a lot less sway. Indeed, this is probably applicable in making the case before the IAD in an appeal as well.

"Arguments" as such are more relevant when applying rules to particular facts, including what constitutes a reasonable inference based on known facts. Arguments work when addressing whether a 44(1) Report is valid-in-law, not so well when addressing more fluid considerations like whether the Canadian in RO breach deserves compassion relieving them from the consequences of failing to meet the Residency Obligation.

Note, after all, those relying on H&C factors for relief generally have no argument at all in regards to whether the Report is valid-in-law. They only need H&C relief because based on the law, the rules, and the facts, the Report is valid-in-law, and they have no argument to the contrary.

As I previously noted, if and when a PR in RO breach is at a stage in the process where the outcome depends on the force of an "argument," that is already a case probably lost. So to some extent I agree that for many PRs relying on H&C relief largely based on the impact of Covid, the "argument" is weak.

But that totally misses the point for either the OP or @canadabound1234. Moreover it misses the context for and how the H&C assessment is in practice conducted.

In any event, the details you reference are not likely to even be in consideration. The PR is not going to be asked if he or she has "been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible." Certainly not in the context you reference, a formal RO compliance examination triggered by a PR card application (which apparently the OP's application has NOT triggered, not so far, which indicates that as long as the OP is settled and living in Canada since making the PR card application last November, the odds are good there will be no 44(1) Report at all let alone an interview with a reviewing officer). The official conducting the RO compliance examination is not going to inquire into whether the PR has been "masked at school/daycare and work," and if that official decides to proceed with a 44(1) Report, the second officer reviewing the Report is likewise NOT likely to be asking if the PR has "been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible," or if they have "masked at school/daycare and work."

I get the sense that there are some in the forum who feel that PRs in breach of the RO should not be getting much of a break because of Covid. Which I can understand.

But so far the evidence indicates that Canadian immigration officials are exercising substantial discretion in approaching enforcement of the RO with wide latitude and outright leniency in regards to the impact of Covid, generally, across the board, without digging into the minute details of the individual Canadian's Covid-avoidance behavior (or lack thereof). There is just no sign that officials are going to go there . . . rather, the signs all point in the direction of a general acknowledgement of the hurdles imposed by Covid and giving that substantial positive weight in favour of allowing PRs to keep their status despite breaching the RO . . . which, it demands cautioning, is bound to be declining and bound to end, and this will likely happen with little or no notice. And, as always, the further caution that to be in breach is to be AT RISK; there is no guarantee of H&C relief.

 

[canuck78]

I disagree with this. Quite a lot actually. And not just because it is largely irrelevant, given that my post (you quote) was NOT about making a PR card application at all (it was addressing the PoE questioning that @canadabound1234 may be facing).

Even in regards to the OP's situation, there is NO indication that the OP has been asked for any additional details in regards to protective measures taken to avoid Covid.

And frankly there is no reason to anticipate there will be such questioning that challenges either the OP (in the course of processing the OP's PR card application) or @canadabound1234 in a PoE screening, in regards to such details about their Covid-avoidance behavior.

Moreover, as I have noted, and more importantly as is readily apparent in the anecdotal reporting, it is clear that border officials have been exercising broader discretion and outright leniency that is undoubtedly based on the recognition that Covid and the pandemic have imposed very substantial difficulties in relocating internationally during the last two plus years. And that this has been without digging into details like whether the individual PR has "been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible," or if they have "masked at school/daycare and work."

Beyond that, even in the PR card application context, "arguments" regarding H&C factors generally have less sway than the general equities, and in many if not most cases a lot less sway. Indeed, this is probably applicable in making the case before the IAD in an appeal as well.

"Arguments" as such are more relevant when applying rules to particular facts, including what constitutes a reasonable inference based on known facts. Arguments work when addressing whether a 44(1) Report is valid-in-law, not so well when addressing more fluid considerations like whether the Canadian in RO breach deserves compassion relieving them from the consequences of failing to meet the Residency Obligation.

Note, after all, those relying on H&C factors for relief generally have no argument at all in regards to whether the Report is valid-in-law. They only need H&C relief because based on the law, the rules, and the facts, the Report is valid-in-law, and they have no argument to the contrary.

As I previously noted, if and when a PR in RO breach is at a stage in the process where the outcome depends on the force of an "argument," that is already a case probably lost. So to some extent I agree that for many PRs relying on H&C relief largely based on the impact of Covid, the "argument" is weak.

But that totally misses the point for either the OP or @canadabound1234. Moreover it misses the context for and how the H&C assessment is in practice conducted.

In any event, the details you reference are not likely to even be in consideration. The PR is not going to be asked if he or she has "been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible." Certainly not in the context you reference, a formal RO compliance examination triggered by a PR card application (which apparently the OP's application has NOT triggered, not so far, which indicates that as long as the OP is settled and living in Canada since making the PR card application last November, the odds are good there will be no 44(1) Report at all let alone an interview with a reviewing officer). The official conducting the RO compliance examination is not going to inquire into whether the PR has been "masked at school/daycare and work," and if that official decides to proceed with a 44(1) Report, the second officer reviewing the Report is likewise NOT likely to be asking if the PR has "been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible," or if they have "masked at school/daycare and work."

I get the sense that there are some in the forum who feel that PRs in breach of the RO should not be getting much of a break because of Covid. Which I can understand.

But so far the evidence indicates that Canadian immigration officials are exercising substantial discretion in approaching enforcement of the RO with wide latitude and outright leniency in regards to the impact of Covid, generally, across the board, without digging into the minute details of the individual Canadian's Covid-avoidance behavior (or lack thereof). There is just no sign that officials are going to go there . . . rather, the signs all point in the direction of a general acknowledgement of the hurdles imposed by Covid and giving that substantial positive weight in favour of allowing PRs to keep their status despite breaching the RO . . . which, it demands cautioning, is bound to be declining and bound to end, and this will likely happen with little or no notice. And, as always, the further caution that to be in breach is to be AT RISK; there is no guarantee of H&C relief.

There were questions about applying for a PR card early based on H&C reasons to be able to travel easily without meeting RO in the future. That is an entirely different situation than leniency arriving at the POE or one time PRTD to travel back to Canada.

 

[Eusufzai]

They haven’t received their PR cards.

When was he first granted PR 10 years ago, did he stayed in Canada for sometime? Without PR how did he crossed the boarder? Sorry for asking too many questions.

Eusufzai

 

[steaky]

When was he first granted PR 10 years ago, did he stayed in Canada for sometime? Without PR how did he crossed the boarder? Sorry for asking too many questions.

Eusufzai

One can cross the land border and returned to Canada without PR card. Read the link below:

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/td-dv-eng.html

 

[dpenabill]

When was he first granted PR 10 years ago, did he stayed in Canada for sometime? Without PR how did he crossed the boarder? Sorry for asking too many questions.

Eusufzai

I assume this was a follow-up question to the anecdotal reporting by @zaid9199, in particular (in part):

. . . Came back to Canada with my family on August 2020 after over 10 years with no physical presence in Canada. We were not reported at the border. We . . . decided to go ahead with a H&C renewal of PR Card on November 2020. . . . Decision was made around April 2021 and cards were chosen for in person pick up appointment to which we are still waiting for till this day.

The particular details in regards to the manner or means of crossing the border will not illuminate much. My guess is that what you are more interested in has to do with the screening they encountered and being allowed to enter Canada without being subject to a 44(1) Report for inadmissibility, given how long they were outside Canada and clearly in breach of the Residency Obligation.

Even in regards to that, their personal experience will not illuminate much beyond illustrating the fact that border officials have some times been rather generous, perhaps more lax than lenient even, in allowing some Canadians to return to Canada without facing consequences for their failure to comply with the PR Residency Obligation. Which is a subject discussed at much length, in much depth, in many topics here. In regards to which it has been amply emphasized that forecasting how it is likely to go for any particular individual is highly speculative, virtually impossible except in terms of ballpark risks.

Some might think it ironic, but if they had returned to Canada a year earlier, August 2019, it might have gone very differently. No way to be sure, but one might easily surmise that their problem-free entry in August 2020 had to do with that being an early peak-phase of the global pandemic, and screening Canadian PRs for RO compliance was likely way down the list of priorities for border control officials at that time. Similar leniency may still be a big factor at the PoE these days. Hard to guess when that will subside, as it eventually will, and noting that it may already be a much smaller factor and that otherwise there will not likely be much if any notice if and when border officials are returning to pre-pandemic RO screening norms.

There were questions about applying for a PR card early based on H&C reasons to be able to travel easily without meeting RO in the future. That is an entirely different situation than leniency arriving at the POE or one time PRTD to travel back to Canada.

In neither the OP nor @zaid9199 scenarios, in which PR card applications were made based on H&C reasons, is there any hint, any hint at all, that the sort of questions you state will make a Covid-reason factor "weak" were asked or considered. That is, no hint of any digging into details like whether the individual PR has "been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible," or if they have "masked at school/daycare and work."

Moreover, for both the OP, and even more so in the @zaid9199 scenario, there is no indication of any formal RO compliance examination. It may be a little early to conclude that the OP's case will not proceed to preparation of a 44(1) Report, and subsequent procedures leading to a decision to terminate PR status (subject to appeal), and as previously noted the OP's situation could depend on the OP's presence in Canada (this is not clear in the post). For the @zaid9199 scenario, however, it is well apparent that IRCC is not at all likely to proceed with preparation of a 44(1) Report, and they are just a few months away from being in compliance with the RO (noting that they are entitled to RO compliance credit for their continuing days in Canada), so even if they were subject to a formal RO compliance examination soon, the extent of their breach (biggest factor in the H&C assessment) is just a couple or three months (if the RO compliance examination was done in mid-May, say, where they were prior to Mid-May 2017 is not relevant; what counts is presence/absence mid-May 2017 to the examination mid-May 2022).

But again, in none of the scenarios referenced in this topic, and moreover in none referenced in this forum, and none in the IAD decisions that I can find, have there been any hint that officials will go digging into details like whether the individual PR has "been masking in situations where social distancing has not been possible," or if they have "masked at school/daycare and work." It continues to be difficult to forecast what weight either PoE officials, or IRCC officials process PR card applications, will give to the impact of Covid as a reason for not returning to Canada sooner, but so far it is readily apparent that this has been a significant if not dominate factor influencing decisions to allow PRs in breach of the RO to keep their status, with no hint this factor is in any way diminished or weakened based on inquiries into the PR's personal Covid-avoidance behavior otherwise. Suggestion otherwise is at best overstated, but more likely simply not true.

 

[hbc]

Hi,
Has anybody applied for PR renewal with Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) Grounds due to not meeting residency obligations?
Please share your experience.

I have applied in November 2021 through an immigration lawyer and the application status is still "In Process".

Any idea of a timeline for such applications with H&C grounds?

Thanks!

Did you hear anything back on your H&C application for PR renewal? Also, can you let me know the laywer/consultant you worked with. I am in same situation....thx

 

[hbc]

I’ll share my case with you for some idea. Came back to Canada with my family on August 2020 after over 10 years with no physical presence in Canada. We were not reported at the border. We were all planning on not renewing PR Card until 2 years have passed. My brother and I realized we can not have our SIN issued without a PR Card and decided to go ahead with a H&C renewal of PR Card on November 2020. My parents did not apply since they have their SIN and would be okay waiting 2 years + they do not have any H&C case. Decision was made around April 2021 and cards were chosen for in person pick up appointment to which we are still waiting for till this day. If I knew the wait was going to be this long I would’ve waited 2 years and applied normally, but in my opinion back then not having a SIN was a difficult obstacle so we decided to go ahead. Thankfully, the H&C appeal seems to have been accepted but the issue here is the wait; especially during these days like Mr. Dpenabill pointed out above.

Did you get help for your PR renewal on H&C from lawyer/consultant? If so, please share the contact details. Thx

 

[dpenabill]

Self and wife - 82ys and 77 yrs. Canadian PRs for over 10 yrs. Past PR renewals smooth. We have only one child - a daughter, who is Canadian citizen for 20+ yrs. We live with her, her husband and her child.

Situation - We have been outside Canada since October 2019 (had to go for death of overseas family member). We were scheduled to return in March 2020 (tickets booked) but covid lockdowns led to flight cancellation. Thereafter wife suffered 2 strokes (Feb and Oct 2021) and self got COVID and in ICU (while still overseas) in Sept 21. PR card expires Oct 2022. Plan to return to Canada June 2022, but have to travel out of Canada for unavoidable family need (no control over that) in early 2023.

So, we have been out of Canada since Oct 2019 to end June 2022. Hence RO will not be met when PR expires in Oct 2022. We need to get PR renewed as have to travel in early 2023.
We are thinking of applying for PR renewal in July 2022 on H&C grounds with RO not met.

Questions

1. Suggestions/recommendations on names of immigration lawyer / immigration consultants who specialize in PR renewal on H&C grounds when RO not met (GTA preferred as we live in Toronto)? If you have used them personally and successfully, please share their information.
2. Will the immigration officer at Toronto Pearson airport let us into Canada as RO is not met (but PR card is valid)?
3. How long is the processing time right now (if someone can tell from their experience) for PR renewal under H&C when RO not met?
4. If we (self and wife) apply in July 2022 (soon after coming to Canada), would the PR be renewed by early 2023?
5. Who would be able to help better - immigration consultant or immigration lawyer?

Thanks

I hesitated wading into this one. Hoping @armoured or others would offer some useful response. And as far as they go, I concur in @armoured's observations. (Perhaps lost in deleted topic?)

But, frankly, your situation is well outside the scope of what is commonly addressed in this forum, and I think it needs to be said with some emphasis: the sooner you arrive here, the better the odds of no problems or at least reducing the scope of the problem. You will be allowed into Canada. That is not the issue. It is not easy to predict whether you will be issued a Removal Order (or as many put it, "Reported") upon your arrival; if you are, you would need to appeal that to have a chance to keep PR status.

Since you have been PRs for a decade or so, when your current PR card expires is NOT relevant. What matters is how many days you have been IN Canada within the five years preceding the date you arrive at the Port-of-Entry. At best you are clearly cutting-it-close (absent since October 2019). But, say, you arrive here June 19, 2022; your RO compliance will be based on how many days you have been here between June 19, 2017 and June 19, 2022.

Obviously if you are issued a Removal Order, questions about applying for new PR cards based on H&C considerations would be moot. You will need to appeal the Removal Order, and win the appeal, in order to save your Canadian PR status. And you will probably need to stay in Canada in the meantime to have a decent chance of winning the appeal.

Beyond that, if you are allowed into Canada without being Reported and issued a Removal Order, short of just staying and getting into RO compliance, more or less taking the safe approach, is gambling.

Even if you apply for and are issued a new PR card based on H&C considerations, if you leave Canada after that for an extended period of time, that may not protect you if when you next return to Canada, on that date you have not been in Canada at least 730 days within the preceding five years. Remember: getting a new PR card does NOT restart the RO compliance clock. After the first five years, RO compliance is always based on presence in Canada during the five years preceding the date the calculation is made. PR card validity dates are NOT relevant.

Otherwise: after you get here see a competent LAWYER . . . not a consultant.

 

[armoured]

I hesitated wading into this one. Hoping @armoured or others would offer some useful response. And as far as they go, I concur in @armoured's observations. (Perhaps lost in deleted topic?)

But, frankly, your situation is well outside the scope of what is commonly addressed in this forum
...
Otherwise: after you get here see a competent LAWYER . . . not a consultant.

Yes, it seems there was a topic deleted, I've now lost track.

I don't have a lot to add except to note: there's a somewhat-similar case in another thread, but with one VERY important difference.

That thread had a PR-or-citizen in Canada asking about spouse who was out of compliance. And in that case, renunciation and being sposnored anew was a real option.

Not the case (with this case from the perhaps deleted-thread, an older couple). And that makes me very reluctant to say much except that need to see a lawyer, and need to determine whether keeping PR status in Canada is the priority.

 

[Ped1994]

Hi all, has anyone here applied for pr renewal with H & C and got her pr card?
I applied on May and my status is still in process. They told me that they have sent my application to local office of the city I’m residing.

 

[canuck78]

Hi all, has anyone here applied for pr renewal with H & C and got her pr card?
I applied on May and my status is still in process. They told me that they have sent my application to local office of the city I’m residing.

duplicate

 

[YVR123]

Hi all, has anyone here applied for pr renewal with H & C and got her pr card?
I applied on May and my status is still in process. They told me that they have sent my application to local office of the city I’m residing.

one of the members replied in this discussion (go back 1 page) applied in Nov 2020 and still didnt get his PR card wen he posted in April 2022.

 

[Kalandar]

@dpenabill , @armoured Need your expert advise in this situation

Last year I was stuck in my home country for long time due to pandemic and my PR card was about to expire hence I applied for my PR card renewal from my home country in April 2021 and came back to Canada in July 1 2021. My total days in Canada were 732 in the last 5 years from the time I applied. Now after waiting for over one and half years I am getting a letter from IRCC on October 25, 2022 for an in-person attendance and then after the examination the office will determine if they would issue me a 5-year or 1-year PR card. I am asked to carry all the documents including residency proofs,

I have added 500 plus days after returning to Canada with a job in hand, based on this case, can I be issued a PR card with a 5 year validity or they would still evaluate my residency obligation based on the days I had at the time of application.

Would appreciate your advice on what can be done in this situation to retain my permanent residence status and convince the officers

 

[armoured]

@dpenabill , @armoured Need your expert advise in this situation

Response from other users in other thread, I don't ahve anything to add.