H&C Humanitarian Ground with/or Without Failed refugee claim
- Thread starter TheWaitingGamer
- Start date
Folks looks like canada is making PR rules hard,does this mean it will be applied to the existing H and C pr candidates pool who are in canada? Or is it only for the economic class applicants?
Hello,
No. H&C has always required a compelling reasons for applicants to be granted a waiver to the requirement to apply and be assessed for permanent residence from outside of Canada.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-5291-humanitarian-compassionate-considerations.html#overview
People should become familiar with the H&C manual if they're applicants for this special consideration.
H&C applications
People who would not normally be eligible to become permanent residents in Canada may apply to immigrate on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. A typical H&C applicant is someone who does not meet the requirements of any of Canada’s economic or family reunification programs. Or it is an applicant who does qualify for more traditional immigration programs, but who is inadmissible to Canada for other reasons, may also request (with narrow exceptions) that their inadmissibility be waived for H&C reasons.
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Mavis Baker, a Jamaican national, entered Canada on a visitor visa in August 1981. She stayed in Canada for 11 years, supporting herself illegally as a live-in domestic worker. She had four Canadian-born children (who were therefore citizens of Canada) and four children who remained in Jamaica. After the birth of her fourth Canadian child in 1992, Baker suffered from post-partum psychosis and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Two of her children were placed in the care of their father. The other two were placed into foster care, and later returned to her care when her condition improved. During this time, she applied for welfare. Her application was rejected.
Baker was ordered deported from Canada in December 1992 for working illegally and overstaying her visitor visa. In 1993, she applied for an exemption from the requirement to apply for permanent residence from outside of Canada, based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, pursuant to s 114(2) of the Immigration Act (now the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act). In this application, Baker cited concerns about the availability of mental health care in her home country; and that deporting her would separate her from her two children in her care, which was against the best interests of the child. Baker's application was supported by submissions from her lawyer, a letter from her doctor, and a letter from a social worker at the Children's Aid Society.
Baker's application was denied for insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds In a letter dated April 18, 1994 and signed by Immigration Officer M Caen. The letter contained no reasons. She requested and was provided with the notes made by Immigration Officer G Lorenz, which were used by Officer Caden in making his decision. Officer Lorenz noted, among other things, that this case was a "catastrophe" and that, "she will, of course, be a tremendous strain on our social welfare system for (probably) (sic) the rest of her life... I am of the opinion that Canada can no longer afford this type of generosity.."
Baker appealed the decision.
Mavis Baker, a Jamaican national, entered Canada on a visitor visa in August 1981. She stayed in Canada for 11 years, supporting herself illegally as a live-in domestic worker. She had four Canadian-born children (who were therefore citizens of Canada) and four children who remained in Jamaica. After the birth of her fourth Canadian child in 1992, Baker suffered from post-partum psychosis and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Two of her children were placed in the care of their father. The other two were placed into foster care, and later returned to her care when her condition improved. During this time, she applied for welfare. Her application was rejected.
Baker was ordered deported from Canada in December 1992 for working illegally and overstaying her visitor visa. In 1993, she applied for an exemption from the requirement to apply for permanent residence from outside of Canada, based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, pursuant to s 114(2) of the Immigration Act (now the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act). In this application, Baker cited concerns about the availability of mental health care in her home country; and that deporting her would separate her from her two children in her care, which was against the best interests of the child. Baker's application was supported by submissions from her lawyer, a letter from her doctor, and a letter from a social worker at the Children's Aid Society.
Baker's application was denied for insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds In a letter dated April 18, 1994 and signed by Immigration Officer M Caen. The letter contained no reasons. She requested and was provided with the notes made by Immigration Officer G Lorenz, which were used by Officer Caden in making his decision. Officer Lorenz noted, among other things, that this case was a "catastrophe" and that, "she will, of course, be a tremendous strain on our social welfare system for (probably) (sic) the rest of her life... I am of the opinion that Canada can no longer afford this type of generosity.."
Baker appealed the decision.
Hi, are we copying and pasting the manual? Okay:
Applying for H&C consideration is an exceptional measure – it is not simply another means of applying for permanent resident status in Canada.
To be considered for an exemption from the usual requirements of IRPA, you must:
- clearly indicate in your application the specific exemption(s) you are requesting.
- provide all details related to your request including the reasons why you believe an exemption(s) should be granted on H&C grounds.
- demonstrate that there are sufficient and compelling reasons for you to be granted an exemption allowing you to apply for permanent residence from within Canada.
No
It is not like that @Bornlucky
I am talking about the history of H&C that took place in 1981.
Based on BIOC.
That means H&C existed in 1980s.
Hello,
H&C existed before that, and I still am not aware of what you're trying to convey to me. BIOC became a consideration some time after Canada signed the UN Convention of the Rights of Children in 1991. BIOC was not a thing before that was signed.
I am familiar with H&C's prior to IRPA coming into force in 2004, on Canada Day.
While H&C was not in the Canada Immigration Act (1976), it existed as a very briefly detailed policy that had about a page of manual instructions. I don't know about how it may have existed with the 1951 Act, if at all.
The Baker decision is what generated greater training and manual instructions, and this coincided with the dramatic rise in volumes because of the beginning of the refugee surges in the mid 1980's. Failed claimants became the dominant population of people applying for H&C considerations. Baker's most significant impact was teaching officers to better phrase their decisions.
This change, where failed claimants repeated the claims that didn't work before the board and the introduction of the Post Determination Refugee Claim Class (PDRCC), was another coincidental legislative change in the 1990's and this became PRRA under IRPA. There were many restrictions on PDRRC and it was poorly funded & failed miserably. PRRA is a success.
The overlaps were finally combined in 2010 with the Backlog Reduction Offices (BRO) appearing where PRRA and H&C are decided by the same level of decision-maker.
The H&C inventories have grown as more refugee claims are made and decided, restrictions on the sponsorship of relatives continues, and whenever there's conflict or natural disasters happening in the world.
The biggest differences over time? A much larger inventory; better articulated policy objectives; centralized offices with specialist decision-makers; plenty of jurisprudence including Baker, fenced budgets that can't be diverted; more diversity in the workforce.
So, yes - I am well aware of the history of H&C, and BIOC.
Fun fact: prior to the BRO's in 2010, an H&C applicant in Calgary would receive a letter stating that they will open the file to make a decision in 9.5 years.
I am getting scared. It seems like very little room for overcoming inadmissibility in H&C. It has been 3 years already since I became inadmissible hope they will give AIP without any issues for us.
my application is good as lawyer said but I think they said for everyone.
my application is good as lawyer said but I think they said for everyone.