Some Observations About H&C Factors and Reasons For Not Returning Sooner (getting into the differences about distinctions and the differences those distinctions make):
The rest of my comments, below, are only tangentially about the query posed by
@daniel_wslim (so, you may want to skip this).
H&C cases are tricky, risky, and the probabilities are impossible to definitively quantify, and near impossible to quantify any more precisely than in very broad terms. For example, the more in breach, the bigger the risk, meaning the bigger the odds there will be an Inadmissibility Report that is followed by a Removal Order. Corollary: the sooner the PR actually returns to Canada, the better their odds of keeping status. That's about as precise anyone can reliably say.
For purposes of presenting the H&C case in the course of a Port-of-Entry examination, the previous post by
@armoured covers it. I would add with emphasis,
BE HONEST. The PR in breach should be prepared to honestly explain, in their own way, their own words, as simply as possible, the reasons why they did not return to Canada sooner, and prepared,
IF ASKED, to back that up with some details, some corroborating documentation (again, not a lot). If more than that is needed, well, odds are that's a case likely to end up in an appeal and the best approach then is to have a reputable, experienced immigration lawyer help.
Leading to the differences about distinctions, in H&
C reasons, and the difference those distinctions can make:
The most illuminating aspect of the back-and-forth above, between
@Ponga and
@armoured, regarding the extent to which particular factors will have influence in whether the PR in breach is allowed H&C relief, is that it illustrates the lack of consensus here about how much weight this or that H&C factor will have, and is an example of ongoing disagreements about how persuasive particular factors can be (like Covid interfering with a return to Canada), and even whether such factors carry any significantly positive weight at all. That discussion is worth some attention if for no other reason than it represents how variable and uncertain the H&C case is, recognizing that how much
we do not know (in regards to enforcement practices) has a lot to do with this.
That said, most factors, even the Covid-related explanations for failing to come to Canada sooner, can be somewhat assessed, even if imprecisely, as to their probable influence, at least in broad terms, in both directions.
For example, it appears that one of the things
@armoured was conveying is that the impact Covid has had in explaining a particular PR's reasons for not returning to Canada, as addressed in a doctor's letter, is indeed a real and significant factor that can and quite likely will have positive influence in the PR's favour. As they both discuss, in somewhat different ways, with somewhat diverging estimates, nonetheless the particular details in the individual case matter, and so how much a particular factor "
helps" or "
may not be of much help," will vary, and can vary considerably, and often is (if not usually is) rather difficult to forecast, if not near impossible to quantify in anything other than very broad terms . . . like it should "
help" or "
may not be of much help." And as that back-and-forth illustrates, even in regards to such imprecise (actually rather vague) terms, there are diverging if not outright contrary views. We are not guessing, as there's quite a lot of information to go on, but there's a lot we do not know so at best we can discern enough to roughly estimate in broad terms.
It warrants remembering with some emphasis that in assessing H&C factors ANY reason the PR proffers MUST be considered. And if I understand
@armoured's approach, I agree that documentation a doctor recommended against travel, or recommended delaying travel, based on the PR's personal vulnerabilities, is a factor that will help in making the H&C case, and perhaps it would be fair to say this would be a factor that MUST be given significant positive H&C weight . . . at least in the abstract, in regards to the weight of a H&C case generally.
But the differences in their respective views about the likely influence of a doctor's letter is more about how much influence it would have, the quantification side of the equation:
A lot? Quite a bit? Just some? A little? Not much? Hardly at all?
And as
@Ponga emphasized, this will vary considerably depending on other particular details.
Which is where an important distinction appears to have been overlooked. Note, context matters.
Being advised by a doctor to NOT travel, may not be of much help if your parents need to use H&C reasons when applying for their renewed PR Cards.
I agree. Noting the context.
On one hand I agree with the view that the doctor's advice will significantly help make the H&C case, generally, but yet here I am saying I agree with "
it may not be of much help." Huh?
Context: "
when applying for . . . renewed PR cards."
Explanation: Not much help here, in this context, because there are so many other factors that can and are likely to loom much larger. In addition to the total numbers themselves, usually the biggest factor, how long the PRs have been staying in Canada, and the extent to which it is clear they have established long-term residence in Canada, BEFORE making the PR card applications, are factors which will loom far larger and have more influence in a PR card application relying on H&C relief.
What is the decision-making at stake here? This is not about betting parlour odds, about placing bets for money. This is about whether or not to make an application for a new PR card relying on H&C relief OR to WAIT until in RO compliance BEFORE making the application. In this context, the weight of a doctor's letter does not come anywhere near close to tipping the scales in the direction of making the application rather than waiting.
Other Contexts: The decision-making at stake in other contexts is less about whether to make an application (either an application to enter Canada by arriving at a PoE, or an application for a PR TD), and much more about how to best prepare for making the application. As discussed above, and
@armoured went into some detail regarding this, it should indeed be of significant (perhaps much) help if the PR is prepared to explain why the PR did not travel to Canada sooner and to present a doctor's letter supporting that, at least in part, for the PoE examination upon their arrival in Canada.
Additional Distinctions of Import:
I have recently discussed, in another topic, a significant if not important distinction in the discussion of H&C factors, highlighting the difference between what is "
acceptable" as a H&C factor, or as evidence of a H&C reason, versus what is "
sufficient" to establish that H&C relief should be allowed. A doctor's letter recommending a delay in travel must be accepted as evidence showing a H&C reason for not coming to Canada sooner, as long as there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. What is sufficient to get H&C relief is a different and much bigger and more complicated matter, and other factors will have a great deal of influence.
Another distinction worth keeping in mind is that many factors are not readily categorized in on-or-off terms. Officials making H&C assessments are necessarily engaged in exercising more than a little discretionary judgment, not exactly subjective but nonetheless imbued with personal perspective, and this includes weighing evidence of reasons discouraging travel short of precluding travel. There is a big difference between circumstances that mean a PR cannot travel versus those circumstances in which it is not advisable or prudent to travel, and the latter can vary widely. If a country imposes a travel ban, that precludes travel, and that will ordinarily carry a lot of weight as a positive H&C factor. In contrast, factors making it difficult or risky to travel, even though travel is still possible, will generally carry significant positive H&C weight, but how much so will depend on the particulars, balanced against other factors. And the other factors includes, big time, the numbers.
Bringing this to Covid. And common sense. There was perhaps a period of time during which Covid was giving many PRs in breach what almost amounted to a free pass (depending on things like whether the PR was already in breach, or near breach, before Covid even started). But there is no suggestion that Covid continues to have as much influence now as it appeared to have a year and two ago, and those PRs in breach and still outside Canada, for them Covid will almost certainly decline in weight, as a H&C factor, the longer they remain abroad.
