http://archive.is/ggFiT
A very recent appeal case has been posted at CanLII where I don't think the appellant had enough H&C justification, yet the judge ruled in her favor.
It seems to me that the appellant was in possession of an unexpired PR card (since she became a PR on August 2012, and re-entered Canada on April 2017, I would assume that her PR card was not expired yet at the time), but was reported anyway when she entered Canada at Montreal. I believe it provides nuance to the discussion on what is or is not considered a strong H&C factor.
In my (non-expert) opinion, at face value, it does not look like she has much of an H&C case to speak of, yet they still ruled in her favor, citing her potential contribution to Canada, and also the fact that she is highly qualified in her field.
I'm not sure how to read this, really. She is a citizen of France and Lebanon, so it's not like she would be in an immediate danger if she were deported to either country.
She is also unlikely to have been established at this point (having reentered Canada less than a year ago). Her reason for being outside the country for so long was because she was pursuing PhD in France, and even then, she did not reenter the country for about a year after she finished her PhD there.
Her family (including a Canadian child) being here, and that she's highly qualified are obviously positive factors, but but her reason to stay out of Canada being somewhat of a lifestyle choice, and her having first world citizenship, you would assume that the judge would negatively rule against her, but hey, what do I know.
A very recent appeal case has been posted at CanLII where I don't think the appellant had enough H&C justification, yet the judge ruled in her favor.
It seems to me that the appellant was in possession of an unexpired PR card (since she became a PR on August 2012, and re-entered Canada on April 2017, I would assume that her PR card was not expired yet at the time), but was reported anyway when she entered Canada at Montreal. I believe it provides nuance to the discussion on what is or is not considered a strong H&C factor.
In my (non-expert) opinion, at face value, it does not look like she has much of an H&C case to speak of, yet they still ruled in her favor, citing her potential contribution to Canada, and also the fact that she is highly qualified in her field.
I'm not sure how to read this, really. She is a citizen of France and Lebanon, so it's not like she would be in an immediate danger if she were deported to either country.
She is also unlikely to have been established at this point (having reentered Canada less than a year ago). Her reason for being outside the country for so long was because she was pursuing PhD in France, and even then, she did not reenter the country for about a year after she finished her PhD there.
Her family (including a Canadian child) being here, and that she's highly qualified are obviously positive factors, but but her reason to stay out of Canada being somewhat of a lifestyle choice, and her having first world citizenship, you would assume that the judge would negatively rule against her, but hey, what do I know.
