In reviewing many cases om Canlii - IAD dismiss I would say majority of H&C appeal regarding permanent resident obligations. I actually had not realized how difficult and rare it is to overcome H&C. Too often the excuse of working, allow the kids to complete elementary, not returning at first available opportunity- ultimately became the downfall of the applicant. All the while, the applicant has no significant ties to Canada.
The granting of an appeal for H&C consideration is an “exceptional relief” (Khosa at para 57; Nekoie at para 30; Shaath v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 731 (CanLII) at para 42). It has been consistently held that an H&C exemption under the IRPA provisions is an exceptional and discretionary remedy (Legault v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCA 125 (CanLII) at para 15; Adams v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1193 (CanLII) at para 30). This relief sits outside the normal immigration classes or refugee protection streams by which foreign nationals can come to Canada permanently or permanent residents can maintain their status. It acts as a sort of safety valve available for exceptional cases. A common theme animating the H&C considerations in the IRPA is the need to link the H&C relief to some form of serious hardship to be corrected, to some misfortunes that amount to more than the normal and expected consequences of removal from Canada and that need to be relieved.