Well, the appeal was denied for the two parents, and one of the two brothers. So a lot of the facts and circumstances discussed in the decision are about them. The youngest, the one who just turned 18, was treated separately given the timing of the PR TD application, very soon after he turned 18, and that was the gist of it. Denied. Denied. Denied. But allowed for the one who just turned 18.
I have paid very little attention to a lot of other immigration issues, including PR visa application issues. Years ago I paid quite a lot of attention to spousal sponsored PR visa applications, having been a sponsored spouse myself (one who benefited quite a lot from some heads-up info I got here and similarly in other forums, for which I was deeply grateful). But over the years I have narrowed my range of interests considerably. Thus, for example, I have paid little attention to visas and sponsored PR for parents and grandparents, and rather little attention to H&C cases other than in the context of relief for non-compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, or related matters (like the impact of eTA on PRs).
I also do not delve much into what policy should be. I spend enough time keeping up with what policies and practices actually are, how the process actually works (as best we can figure out), in relation to the few issues I do follow (which are mostly tied to grant citizenship eligibility and PR inadmissibility issues, like the RO).
As for the IAD and FC decisions, they are indeed interesting, often informative, but also often frustrating. In more than a few cases it is clear there were circumstances left unsaid but having a lot of influence. Sometimes the shadow of negative credibility looms large albeit not overt let alone explicit. But sometimes it is clear something else was influencing the outcome but it is not at all easy to discern what that was. And it has taken me many years to adapt to the way many terms are employed in Canadian law and I continue to be cautious about relying on what I think this or that term or phrase means (drives me a bit crazy when I see forum participants espouse opinions relying heavily on the meaning of words, given that when the meaning of particular words makes a difference, the particular words often have special meaning in the law which is NOT concurrent with the meaning of the word in general usage).
H&C cases are especially tricky and difficult to forecast. This is plenty true for H&C relief for PR RO non-compliance. And H&C relief for PR RO non-compliance is way more simple than other types of H&C cases. Indeed, while many of the factors are superficially the same, the context and application in the PR RO setting is very different than it is in other contexts. This forum tends to over-simplify how H&C reasons are considered in the PR RO context. I have expended quite a lot of effort to illuminate some of the complexities, and to especially caution that sometimes a factual circumstance can be a positive factor even though in most other situations that same factual circumstance will be considered a negative factor. Lots and lots and lots of It-Depends loom large in even relatively simple H&C cases.
Yes, sometimes the variable results may be attributed to the predilection of the individual decision-maker, and one can often find patterns in the decisions by particular individuals, both IAD and FC. But there is so much variability in the facts in individual cases, and so much flexibility in the standards for H&C analysis, there are bound to be outcomes which appear wildly different, perhaps even contradictory (like one removed-as-a-minor PR getting H&C relief in circumstances rather similar to another being denied H&C relief). Which is why I tend to disagree with posts in the forum, for example, that assert the outcome in a particular H&C case will be this or that for-sure. I am skeptical of even broadly quantifying the odds except in the most obvious cases, and even those often warrant a who-knows what is possible caveat.
One important distinction which seems to often be overlooked is the difference between before and after decision-making. Thus, for example, warnings about how difficult it can be to make a successful H&C case mean something very different, and should be taken very differently, for a PR who is NOT yet in breach of the RO and is weighing going abroad or staying abroad longer, versus the PR who has already breached the RO and is considering a course of action in attempting to save PR status. Thus, for example, I can offer some very strong cautions against taking the risk for the PR in the first of these situations, emphasizing how tricky and difficult H&C cases can be; but for someone else in very similar circumstances, but past tense (as in already in breach), I can focus on the positive elements in making the H&C case, in effect offering encouraging information about pursuing the H&C case (albeit rooted in realistic apprehensions as to more or less likely outcomes, which generally are NOT positive for PRs in breach of the RO applying for a PR TD or appealing a 44(1) Report).
In any event, I anticipate we will continue to see some rather wide variation in the outcome of RO H&C relief for PR's removed-as-a-minor cases . . . but we know enough now to caution that just the fact of having landed and being a PR will NOT guarantee a free pass later for such minor PRs, and that indeed, if the individual had rather minimal establishment in Canada the odds are probably against obtaining a PR TD.
