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!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

1F(b) - Exclusion from Refugee Protection

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently released a decision on the interpretation of Article 1F(b) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ("Refugee Convention"). The case is Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68.
Facts:

This case involved a refugee claimant from Cuba. He had previously been granted refugee status in the United States. While living in the US, the Applicant was convicted and served time in jail for two assaults with a deadly weapon. The US therefore revoked his refugee status and issued a removal warrant.

The Applicant then came to Canada, and made a refugee claim.

Issue:

The only issue in this case was whether Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention (adopted into our immigration law under s.98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - "IRPA") barred the Applicant from refugee protection because of his past crimes.

Decision:

Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention reads:

F. The provisions of this Convention s…

Canadian Caregiver Program Overhauled

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) recently announced major changes to the (former) Live-in Caregiver program. The former program has now been split into 2 distinct streams: Caring for Children ClassCaring For People With High Medical Needs Class
These 2 new economic immigration classes will allow those who have Canadian work experience in caring for children or for individuals with high medical needs to apply for permanent residence.
Caring for Children Class
The biggest changed this program is the removal of the “live-in” requirement for caregivers. The program allows anyone who worked full-time in the care of children to apply for permanent residence.
The program requirements are as follows:
Work experience:within the 4 years before the date of the application, have at least 2 years of full-time work experience in Canada as a home child care providerThat the job duties meet the specifications outlined in unit group 4411 of the National Occupation Classification (NOC)Language p…

Change to Age of Dependent Child to "under 22"

The Government just released Regulations amending the age of dependency from "under 19" to "under 22". However, the changes will not come into force until October 24, 2017. As such, any applications made until that date will continue to face the current definition of a child being "under 19". Nevertheless, this opens up opportunities for those who were unable to include children as dependants to sponsor those who might still be under the age of 22 when the Regulations take effect.  The Full-Text of the Regulations can be found here.