Possible H&C application? Please help

[Bornlucky]

1. For comparison you can take a very similar system - refugee application. Same like in H&C you are not applying because of your language, education or work experience. You are applying because of "reasons".
And same like H&C, there is no limit how many applications can be accepted (not approved) per year. But same like for H&C there is a limit how many people will be approved.
The hearing times and approvals used to be within 1 year or even shorter. That is no longer the case. People can easily wait 2 - 3 years and another 2 - 3 years for PR itself.

And some rejected applicants do enter the H&C.
Now imagine that yearly amount of applications will be increasing. It will create following effects:
1. The waiting time will be longer and longer.
2. The situation will be more visible to the large public.
3. In a long term there will we desire to change the whole system and the change might not be for better for applicants.

H&C is much more subtle but in a way overloads resources that are meant for other services.
And yes you are right you can be selfish just like everybody else, just too much of overuse one system might trigger certain changes. (see Ontario elections as an example).
Technically any system admitting other citizens to Canada can go as long as there is a political setup for it.
In case of parents and grand parents, flocking towards it might end up in certain adjustment and different conditions.
And I would see it more like a promo activity rather than anything else, but also a promo activity does have its limits.


When it comes to USA they do have the same thing Canada had before - a system where anybody can apply for a family sponsorship. but they will be waiting in an endless and ever growing queue. (10 + years is nothing exceptional there).

Hi, briefly in response to your message:

1. H&C has experienced huge inventories of unprocessed H&C applications in the past - see Vegreville - "Operation Detour" where they farmed out the work to local CICs (that are mostly gone now). Vegreville was supposed to solve the increase in these and visitors, workers and students applications.
2. The general public is usually divided down the middle with immigration issues - that seldom changes no matter what's going on.
3. They again changed the system to deal with these and they greatly improved their processing numbers thanks to the PRRA backlog reduction that also dealt with corresponding PRRAs - the system was changed and will change again and again and again

What you describe as "selfish" is someone accessing a process that the rules permit them to apply for? A promo? - you lost me there. H&C used to be just policy and in IRPA it was promoted into the Act under 25(1). It won't be leaving anytime soon now that the Minister can order an approval, I don't imagine.

If you wish to compare the IRB with the Ministry it is a false comparison on a variety of fronts - the levels of decision-makers, management of their inventories, thresholds of decision-making and even the locations of their offices alter what can be achieved. Not to mention the will to introduce processing efficiencies.

I suppose that I could have been briefer, but the constraints, considerations and health of the Department to do the work that people are permitted to access should not effect a person's decision to apply for H&C. They need to consider if they may succeed and they need good counsel.

 

[vensak]

Hi, briefly in response to your message:

1. H&C has experienced huge inventories of unprocessed H&C applications in the past - see Vegreville - "Operation Detour" where they farmed out the work to local CICs (that are mostly gone now). Vegreville was supposed to solve the increase in these and visitors, workers and students applications.
2. The general public is usually divided down the middle with immigration issues - that seldom changes no matter what's going on.
3. They again changed the system to deal with these and they greatly improved their processing numbers thanks to the PRRA backlog reduction that also dealt with corresponding PRRAs - the system was changed and will change again and again and again

What you describe as "selfish" is someone accessing a process that the rules permit them to apply for? A promo? - you lost me there. H&C used to be just policy and in IRPA it was promoted into the Act under 25(1). It won't be leaving anytime soon now that the Minister can order an approval, I don't imagine.

If you wish to compare the IRB with the Ministry it is a false comparison on a variety of fronts - the levels of decision-makers, management of their inventories, thresholds of decision-making and even the locations of their offices alter what can be achieved. Not to mention the will to introduce processing efficiencies.

I suppose that I could have been briefer, but the constraints, considerations and health of the Department to do the work that people are permitted to access should not effect a person's decision to apply for H&C. They need to consider if they may succeed and they need good counsel.

Ok so let me see:
1. Any country has only obligation to take care of their own citizens and nobody else. That is why a country was created in a first place - to deal with the issues of a group of people and to improve their lives (as combined resources can do more). So yes any country is behaving like a club where you can either become member by some way (naturalisation) or you can inherit it by some way (born there or having parents being members of the "club"). And again the rules how to do that are up to country itself. So it is mostly up what the citizens want.

2. Because there is not just one country in the whole Earth, one has to "play" with other clubs to the certain level. So ever so often they create coalitions then they split apart and create new ones. As the time the power relationships did change to the level where it is no more possible to go to the full "bullying" mode (war) without facing total annihilation (nuclear weapons). But that still leaves the game opened for other type of dominance and expansion (which is more evident for some countries and less for others).

3. Some countries just like Canada, did claim a big piece of the board (huge landmass), but they are lacking the power to defend it if needed (not enough people). Hence they cannot play certain strategies (unlike USA, China or Russia), so they need allies in the first place. or people that are tied to the other countries, which will make it much more difficult to attack them directly.

4. So because of the first 3 reasons Canada has to do a lot of promo activities (things that are appealing to other countries or at least to citizens of other countries - like whole invitation to refugees, H&C system that claims to be humanitarian or a robust economic immigration). Especially when it comes to refugees and H&C, these are pure promo activities, where they do not really know what will be the "quality" of potential citizens who will use those streams.

5. At the same time however those things cannot clash with views of local citizens, because those are the ones who do cast votes for their leaders. (and even in dictatorships where there was seemingly no election, if you neglect local people it will end up rebel against you or just fall into apathy and without those same people you will not get all kind of nice perks that comes automated production, farming and such).

Now with all that do not be fooled, all can change pretty quickly if that is the real wish of locals and if that is not a suicidal move on an international scene.
So if some actions will be more visible with more people talking about it and kicking against it, something will have to change there.
Of course right now there is a big silence about H&C system to the Canadian public (most people have no idea what it is in a first place). And to get some sound statistics is also a mission impossible (not that they do not have it, but they just do not publish it). The reason there is simple - most people including many new Canadians will not be overjoyed to see the system which when used properly allows to skip a lot. (simply said, they would feel that their own country cares less about them and more about any "outsider").

But just because not much info is out, it does not mean that somebody is not watching. And that somebody (usually the current political leaders) needs to take steps if the systems is getting out of control (being too overcrowded). Because if that happens eventually their political rivals will pick it up and dig out some data and then use it against them in order to get votes from people (as a good example the refugee surge was one of the reasons why Conservatives were elected in Ontario recently).

So should thing go south they have to implement measures how to change the system and make it more complicated in order to ease up the situation.
And that is where my comment about selfishness and overcrowding was hinting and how it can damage the whole system in a long run.
And yes it is very normal to be selfish (and people do it all the time), but while some acts of selfishness (where you use money you earned to buy things for you and where you rush to the shop to buy something that is limited before others will buy it) are acceptable, others (where you smoke in non smoking restaurant or where you pour your old oil in a river) are not. And while in some cases there is a law punishing you when doing such acts, in other cases it is just the disgust of the others around you

So the original question was about a healthy looking 53 years old woman and a daughter who is too rushed to "wait her luck" in parents and grand parents lottery. So of course such thing will not trigger that much sympathy. And of course to win it the loss in the family were counted (even if not all of them triggered the immigration decision there). But again that case is one of thousands others (and this will be much more visible for an officer that is reading 10 sob stories like that per day).

 

[Bornlucky]

Ok so let me see:
1. Any country has only obligation to take care of their own citizens and nobody else. That is why a country was created in a first place - to deal with the issues of a group of people and to improve their lives (as combined resources can do more). So yes any country is behaving like a club where you can either become member by some way (naturalisation) or you can inherit it by some way (born there or having parents being members of the "club"). And again the rules how to do that are up to country itself. So it is mostly up what the citizens want.

2. Because there is not just one country in the whole Earth, one has to "play" with other clubs to the certain level. So ever so often they create coalitions then they split apart and create new ones. As the time the power relationships did change to the level where it is no more possible to go to the full "bullying" mode (war) without facing total annihilation (nuclear weapons). But that still leaves the game opened for other type of dominance and expansion (which is more evident for some countries and less for others).

3. Some countries just like Canada, did claim a big piece of the board (huge landmass), but they are lacking the power to defend it if needed (not enough people). Hence they cannot play certain strategies (unlike USA, China or Russia), so they need allies in the first place. or people that are tied to the other countries, which will make it much more difficult to attack them directly.

4. So because of the first 3 reasons Canada has to do a lot of promo activities (things that are appealing to other countries or at least to citizens of other countries - like whole invitation to refugees, H&C system that claims to be humanitarian or a robust economic immigration). Especially when it comes to refugees and H&C, these are pure promo activities, where they do not really know what will be the "quality" of potential citizens who will use those streams.

5. At the same time however those things cannot clash with views of local citizens, because those are the ones who do cast votes for their leaders. (and even in dictatorships where there was seemingly no election, if you neglect local people it will end up rebel against you or just fall into apathy and without those same people you will not get all kind of nice perks that comes automated production, farming and such).

Now with all that do not be fooled, all can change pretty quickly if that is the real wish of locals and if that is not a suicidal move on an international scene.
So if some actions will be more visible with more people talking about it and kicking against it, something will have to change there.
Of course right now there is a big silence about H&C system to the Canadian public (most people have no idea what it is in a first place). And to get some sound statistics is also a mission impossible (not that they do not have it, but they just do not publish it). The reason there is simple - most people including many new Canadians will not be overjoyed to see the system which when used properly allows to skip a lot. (simply said, they would feel that their own country cares less about them and more about any "outsider").

But just because not much info is out, it does not mean that somebody is not watching. And that somebody (usually the current political leaders) needs to take steps if the systems is getting out of control (being too overcrowded). Because if that happens eventually their political rivals will pick it up and dig out some data and then use it against them in order to get votes from people (as a good example the refugee surge was one of the reasons why Conservatives were elected in Ontario recently).

So should thing go south they have to implement measures how to change the system and make it more complicated in order to ease up the situation.
And that is where my comment about selfishness and overcrowding was hinting and how it can damage the whole system in a long run.
And yes it is very normal to be selfish (and people do it all the time), but while some acts of selfishness (where you use money you earned to buy things for you and where you rush to the shop to buy something that is limited before others will buy it) are acceptable, others (where you smoke in non smoking restaurant or where you pour your old oil in a river) are not. And while in some cases there is a law punishing you when doing such acts, in other cases it is just the disgust of the others around you

So the original question was about a healthy looking 53 years old woman and a daughter who is too rushed to "wait her luck" in parents and grand parents lottery. So of course such thing will not trigger that much sympathy. And of course to win it the loss in the family were counted (even if not all of them triggered the immigration decision there). But again that case is one of thousands others (and this will be much more visible for an officer that is reading 10 sob stories like that per day).

It was heartening to see you return to the original question - even though adding the words "healthy looking" and altering the daughter's concerns for her mother so that it is simply a "rush" on her part - absent the actual details, you have inserted your opinion instead.

Canada signs agreements like the Best Interests of the Child (BIOC) at the United Nations and H&C captures BIOC neatly as a visible integration of that international agreement into Canada's administration of law. The 1951 Convention for Refugees isn't the hot issue for any informed discussion - how long it takes to process the claims is, and who pays the tab while that time spins around and around is what is being argued over. If you believe that this is all lip-service because Canada cannot threaten the world, then that's a leap in logic that can't be spanned.

You have some earnest feelings obviously, but I too will return to the original point - she's worried about her mum and so she can, if she chooses, have her mother apply for PR under H&C.

The policy ought to guide the decision-makers and I am very confident that it will thanks to the calibre of the current program and the frequent input from the Federal Court of Canada. I may add that I do not see any questions on this site about how long it takes to get a 1st level decision (AIP or not) so I am going to guess that the inventory must be in good shape.

Have a great day

 

[vensak]

It was heartening to see you return to the original question - even though adding the words "healthy looking" and altering the daughter's concerns for her mother so that it is simply a "rush" on her part - absent the actual details, you have inserted your opinion instead.

Canada signs agreements like the Best Interests of the Child (BIOC) at the United Nations and H&C captures BIOC neatly as a visible integration of that international agreement into Canada's administration of law. The 1951 Convention for Refugees isn't the hot issue for any informed discussion - how long it takes to process the claims is, and who pays the tab while that time spins around and around is what is being argued over. If you believe that this is all lip-service because Canada cannot threaten the world, then that's a leap in logic that can't be spanned.

You have some earnest feelings obviously, but I too will return to the original point - she's worried about her mum and so she can, if she chooses, have her mother apply for PR under H&C.

The policy ought to guide the decision-makers and I am very confident that it will thanks to the calibre of the current program and the frequent input from the Federal Court of Canada. I may add that I do not see any questions on this site about how long it takes to get a 1st level decision (AIP or not) so I am going to guess that the inventory must be in good shape.

Have a great day

My opinion comes from the facts that she has disclosed so far.
1. She did not state any health issues and complications other than the stress from sad events (deceased husband and child). With lack of these it makes her mother "healthy looking" (especially age of 52-53 years is still considered and active age.
2. The new lottery system is in place for less than 2 years. After first year round it was clear what are the chances to be invited (app. 10%). Of course that system is much less favourable to the previous one where you were "bribing" your way in (you were not bribing an officer, but you were paying extra money for a good lawyer to make your application perfect and for a courier to deliver it on a precise date).
3. With the odds stated about, she has app. 8-10 years of trying before she can complain about bad luck (so much for statistics).
4. Her mother has a barely approved supervisa yet she was thinking to go forth H&C application. Hence all that points to the rushing point.
5. From her own comments (complaining about not being invited in the new system so far) it is obvious that death of her brother does not trigger the wish to get her mother to Canada. However as she must have read a bit about the topic it would make the case more plausible (while her brother was alive in India that would have been a complete mission impossible). That is why I have commented that disclosing deceased relative was partially to gain sympathy.

6. Refugee convention has 0% to do with any H&C cases. it is because people are applying there for other reasons than the refugee reasons (failed refugee claimants are not regarded as refugees). H&C as such is just Canadian invention and as such can be scrapped at any moment without having troubles with any international obligations.

And even Refugee convention itself just comes back to the point where countries have to "play" with other countries these days. Not because they are so nice or kind but simply because the consequences would hit everybody including them. That is why I have mentioned that such move should not be a suicidal move.

 

[Bornlucky]

My opinion comes from the facts that she has disclosed so far.
1. She did not state any health issues and complications other than the stress from sad events (deceased husband and child). With lack of these it makes her mother "healthy looking" (especially age of 52-53 years is still considered and active age.
2. The new lottery system is in place for less than 2 years. After first year round it was clear what are the chances to be invited (app. 10%). Of course that system is much less favourable to the previous one where you were "bribing" your way in (you were not bribing an officer, but you were paying extra money for a good lawyer to make your application perfect and for a courier to deliver it on a precise date).
3. With the odds stated about, she has app. 8-10 years of trying before she can complain about bad luck (so much for statistics).
4. Her mother has a barely approved supervisa yet she was thinking to go forth H&C application. Hence all that points to the rushing point.
5. From her own comments (complaining about not being invited in the new system so far) it is obvious that death of her brother does not trigger the wish to get her mother to Canada. However as she must have read a bit about the topic it would make the case more plausible (while her brother was alive in India that would have been a complete mission impossible). That is why I have commented that disclosing deceased relative was partially to gain sympathy.

6. Refugee convention has 0% to do with any H&C cases. it is because people are applying there for other reasons than the refugee reasons (failed refugee claimants are not regarded as refugees). H&C as such is just Canadian invention and as such can be scrapped at any moment without having troubles with any international obligations.

And even Refugee convention itself just comes back to the point where countries have to "play" with other countries these days. Not because they are so nice or kind but simply because the consequences would hit everybody including them. That is why I have mentioned that such move should not be a suicidal move.

Get real - #4. "barely approved visa." what's a barely approved visa other than an approved visa? Your bias is blatant. She asked a question online and didn't provide a detailed application but you insert negative motivations and material that isn't there.
5. She must have read about how it is more plausible with a dead relative and so she wants to exploit what is actually a simple fact of an untimely death? You are adding material that isn't there and shouldn't be expected.
6. I well know that H&Cs and refugees are different, thanks - as far as scrapping 25(1) H&C's it will take an Act of parliament (I suppose that's nothing of consequence). PRRA Officers decide risk-based H&C applications as well as having the authority to make someone a Convention refugee under a PRRA decision so while the decisions are different bits of legislation, the person making the decision is well grounded in both standards of decision-making. That's a good thing given their unique knowledge of country conditions and how similar circumstances of applicants are treated in different places...

You interpret and make light of what motivates governments of countries to comply with the 1951 Convention for refugees when refugee topics are "playing" with the subject of refugees. I believe that the efforts now appear to me to be nations trying to preserve their shared values while dealing with a crisis level of migration.

Were are not going to agree on much, and this isn't going anywhere positive so let's some up. The woman can apply under H&C without destroying Canada's stated tradition as a humanitarian nation. What a great place.

 

[Skouks]

Really nicely written explanation. That’s how I exactly did for mom while applying, I am her only daughter no family member in back home also she has been here for two years and suddenly ’ got critical illness for which she can’t live alone and being a daughter I am givinh her best care as possible , waiting for my decision .