Skip to main content

Humanitarian and Compassionate Applications & Risk

Section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) is the generic section of the Act which allows people to seek to overcome or be exempt from any requirement under the Act on humanitarian and compassionate ("H&C") grounds. The provision also allows people to seek permanent residence within Canada when they do not otherwise qualify under any of Canada's programs. The section is often relied on by failed refugee claimants whose situations do not quite meet the threshold of the definitions of protected persons, but a return to their country of nationality would nevertheless cause undue, undeserved or disproportionate hardship. In exceptional situations, such individuals are granted permanent residence on H&C grounds.

In June 2010, section 25 was amended to add subsection (1.3), which reads as follows:

(1.3) In examining the request of a foreign national in Canada, the Minister may not consider the factors that are taken into account in the determination of whether a person is a Convention refugee under section 96 or a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) but must consider elements related to the hardships that affect the foreign national.

What this amendment says is that an officer reviewing an H&C is not allowed to consider any refugee-type factors. The officer is not permitted to make a protection determination. Often times, H&C applications, particularly for failed refugee claimants, often cite general country conditions and generalized risk as reasons for the hardship. Until this amendment, the Federal Court has consistently held that the risk analysis that an officer must undertake in an H&C is vastly different than what is required of a Member hearing a refugee case or a PRRA (pre-removal risk assessment) officer. The Court consistently held that general risks, that may be faced by a population generally, may be sufficient for a finding of hardship.

It is only now that we are seeing decisions on H&Cs filed post-June 2010 and the bulk of them are being refused by officers saying they cannot look at any of the generalized evidence provided because they are precluded from doing so by s. 25(1.3). We have always maintained that this is a completely incorrect interpretation of the law. How can you say generalized risk is a "refugee-like factor" when that type of evidence is specifically not considered in a refugee case?

In our office, we have been filing applications for Judicial Review to the Federal Court on almost all of these types of refusals because we strongly believe this is a gross misinterpretation of the law, and of this new subsection.

Yesterday, I was able to finally argue such a case in front of Justice Hughes at the Federal Court. Justice Hughes was very well versed on the issue presented and felt quite strongly that we might need direction from the Federal Court of Appeal on this issue. Counsel for the Department of Justice also indicated that the interpretation of this new subsection is being hotly debated within the immigration department in Ottawa.

It will be interesting to see Justice Hughes decision, and it is also very likely that this will be referred to the Federal Court of Appeal by way of a certified question. Some direction on the interpretation to be given to this amendment is desperately needed!


Popular posts from this blog

Age of Dependent Child - now 'under 22'

Today is the day! The age of dependent children is to revert back to 'under 22'. You can read the original release here. The previous changes had lowered the age of dependent children to under 19 and removed the exception for those enrolled in post-secondary education. Going forward, a "dependent child" is any biological or adopted child of the parent, who is in one of the following situations of dependency: Is under 22 and not a spouse or common-law partner;is 22 or older but has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22 and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition  Those who have pending permanent residence applications can now add their under 22 children to their application, if they were formerly prevented from doing so when the age limit was under 19. Those whose permanent residence applications have been finalized may be in a position to sponsor their under 22 child

Refugee (Asylum) Claims - Understanding the Process

There has been a lot of news coverage about the influx of refugees (asylum seekers) into Canada via the United States, particularly into Quebec. This post is meant to explore who is entitled to make such a claim in Canada and what claimants can expect.

Eligibility to make the claimCanada and the US have entered into what's called a "safe third country agreement". Essentially, both countries consider the other to be relatively equal in terms of refugee protection and the refugee process. As such, there is an expectation for claimants to make their refugee claim in the first of these two countries. 
The practical consequence of this agreement is that it prevents individuals crossing from the US into Canada at a land border from making a claim in Canada. 
There are exceptions to this agreement: If the claimant has family in CanadaIf the claim is made at an in-land officeIf the claim is made at an airportThere are other eligibility factors as well, but this is the main issue aff…

HUGE decision by SCC - Conditional Sentences & Serious Criminality for Permanent Residents

The Supreme Court of Canada just released its decision in the Tran case. At issue in the case was the interpretation to be given to section 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which reads:
36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
Any permanent residents found to be inadmissible for "serious criminality" lost their right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) pursuant to section 64 of IRPA:
64 (1) No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division by a foreign national or their sponsor or by a permanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of securi…