Opinions

[Buffertiger]

did 2 H+c application base on establishment in Canada both was refused .. I then apply for refugee which my claim was found Eligible for refugee as a protected person ... is there still a chance would they question why now after so many years .. advice plz

 

[Bornlucky]

did 2 H+c application base on establishment in Canada both was refused .. I then apply for refugee which my claim was found Eligible for refugee as a protected person ... is there still a chance would they question why now after so many years .. advice plz

That would be a reasonable question, but perhaps you mentioned your risk of return in one or both of your H&C applications? That would clear things up, maybe.

 

[Buletruck]

Limitation on assessment of risk in an in-Canada application
Subsection 25(1.3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states the following: “... 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”. In other words, officers do not determine whether a well-founded fear of persecution, risk to life, danger of torture and risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment has been established, but they may take the underlying facts into account in determining whether the applicant will face hardship if returned to their country of origin.
Subsection 25(1.3) applies only to H&C applications made in Canada.

They don’t assess risks associated with a refugee claim in H&C applications. Only hardship one faces if they return home.

 

[canuck78]

Yes your time away from your home country will factor into your application. Why did you not apply for asylum first? That would be the logical thing to do if you feared for your life because H&C tends to be a longer process and the success rate is not great. You also have access to many more services under asylum applications. The ability to show fear for your life becomes harder the longer you stay out of your home country. What has your lawyer said? They must have shared their concerns about your application.

 

[Bornlucky]

They don’t assess risks associated with a refugee claim in H&C applications. Only hardship one faces if they return home.

This doesn't prevent someone from recording it in their submissions for consideration as a hardship, and that would have been a handy resource were it so. Those would be the underlying facts in your quote and might mitigate his obvious credibility issue(s) with such a late claim to CR status.

 

[Buffertiger]

Yes your time away from your home country will factor into your application. Why did you not apply for asylum first? That would be the logical thing to do if you feared for your life because H&C tends to be a longer process and the success rate is not great. You also have access to many more services under asylum applications. The ability to show fear for your life becomes harder the longer you stay out of your home country. What has your lawyer said? They must have shared their concerns about your application.

My lawyer suggested I do the refugee

 

[Buffertiger]

This doesn't prevent someone from recording it in their submissions for consideration as a hardship, and that would have been a handy resource were it so. Those would be the underlying facts in your quote and might mitigate his obvious credibility issue(s) with such a late claim to CR status.

Ok thanks.. am just hoping for the best

 

[Buletruck]

This doesn't prevent someone from recording it in their submissions for consideration as a hardship, and that would have been a handy resource were it so. Those would be the underlying facts in your quote and might mitigate his obvious credibility issue(s) with such a late claim to CR status.

Agreed. The point being that attempting to use the same grounds and emphasis used in a refugee claim in an H&C claim would be a mistake. The H&C claim needs to be crafted appropriately.

 

[Bornlucky]

Agreed. The point being that attempting to use the same grounds and emphasis used in a refugee claim in an H&C claim would be a mistake. The H&C claim needs to be crafted appropriately.

Hello, and I admire your posts assisting people with immigration issues, BTW,

H&C's are managed alongside Pre-Removal Risk Assessments because of the overlap in the knowledge of the decision-maker where hardship factors and risks associated with Convention refugee claims often meet (PRRA Officers can deem a person to be a Convention refugee within their PRRA mandate). H&C's have traditionally also included a repetition of the circumstances unsuccessful claimants included with their applications alongside of the other H&C factors.

For a long while the Department used two different officers (in Ontario mostly) to assess a single H&C because there would be a "risk opinion" provided by the PRRA officer for the H&C's cited hardships, and the H&C decision-maker would consider the opinion within their decision.

This person has reversed the general flow of these applications, but my point here is that you are absolutely correct that an H&C needs to be crafted far more broadly because of all of the factors that this broad discretionary decision can encompass, however my message to people subject to these processes is that the very same refugee-like hardships visible in refugee claims should be included in post-claim H&Cs or voila, your credibility may take something of a blow. How these asserted facts are presented may change slightly, but to not mention your fear of return wouldn't make any sense when considering hardship.

There are different thresholds and H&C is higher than a CR decision-making test (balance of probabilities vs. mere possibility). https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/legal-concepts/Pages/RefDef05.aspx#n52

Inconsistencies are viewed by immigration decision-makers (who are paid to be suspicious) in a poor light. Consistency over time without contradictory evidence is very positive.

Cheers and congrats on your lengthy history of better informing often desperate people.

 

[Buffertiger]

Hello, and I admire your posts assisting people with immigration issues, BTW,

H&C's are managed alongside Pre-Removal Risk Assessments because of the overlap in the knowledge of the decision-maker where hardship factors and risks associated with Convention refugee claims often meet (PRRA Officers can deem a person to be a Convention refugee within their PRRA mandate). H&C's have traditionally also included a repetition of the circumstances unsuccessful claimants included with their applications alongside of the other H&C factors.

For a long while the Department used two different officers (in Ontario mostly) to assess a single H&C because there would be a "risk opinion" provided by the PRRA officer for the H&C's cited hardships, and the H&C decision-maker would consider the opinion within their decision.

This person has reversed the general flow of these applications, but my point here is that you are absolutely correct that an H&C needs to be crafted far more broadly because of all of the factors that this broad discretionary decision can encompass, however my message to people subject to these processes is that the very same refugee-like hardships visible in refugee claims should be included in post-claim H&Cs or voila, your credibility may take something of a blow. How these asserted facts are presented may change slightly, but to not mention your fear of return wouldn't make any sense when considering hardship.

There are different thresholds and H&C is higher than a CR decision-making test (balance of probabilities vs. mere possibility). https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/legal-concepts/Pages/RefDef05.aspx#n52

Inconsistencies are viewed by immigration decision-makers (who are paid to be suspicious) in a poor light. Consistency over time without contradictory evidence is very positive.

Cheers and congrats on your lengthy history of better informing often desperate people.

I don’t understand this can u break it down in a lower form plz and thanks

 

[Bornlucky]

I don’t understand this can u break it down in a lower form plz and thanks

I'll try, H&C applications consider personal factors put forth by the applicant and one of those factors is hardship. Hardship covers a lot of ground but will likely include matters that relate to a person who has made (and lost) a claim to be a refugee in Canada, but it can be elderly parents or something else.

H&C decision-makers assess hardship, whatever is submitted, and decide if it qualifies under their policies (as well as establishment and best interests of the children, etc.) The decision that they make is always with regard to the entirety of the H&C and all of the factors. The threshold for decision-making is essentially, the balance of probabilities.

These same decision-makers decide Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Applications (PRRAs) where they have the authority to make someone a Convention refugee (yup, just like the IRB) but PRRAs are "invited" and you cannot simply pick up an application for one because you're supposed to be right at the point of removal, or removal-ready. Mostly failed claimants apply and they often restate the issues that they had in their refugee bid in accompanying H&C applications.

So, you can say the same thing in two applications but the factors are viewed in different lenses with differing thresholds necessary for an approval.

You haven't made a claim yet (I think) but you did submit H&Cs, and if I was an IRB board member, I'd want to see what you've been saying about your risk factors within your previous H&Cs to see if your story is consistent. However, the purpose of my earlier message was simply this - H&Cs with PRRAs are somewhat similar but are viewed in different lights by the same person making both decisions. PRRA is narrow (fewer approvals but a lower threshold) and H&Cs are viewed with broader considerations and discretion.

It isn't simple, but immigration legislation and regulations are nothing but technicalities. H&C discretionary decision-making can overcome some serious technicalities for a successful applicant.

You have the IRB to deal with and this is another matter all together now.

Good luck

 

[Buffertiger]

I'll try, H&C applications consider personal factors put forth by the applicant and one of those factors is hardship. Hardship covers a lot of ground but will likely include matters that relate to a person who has made (and lost) a claim to be a refugee in Canada, but it can be elderly parents or something else.

H&C decision-makers assess hardship, whatever is submitted, and decide if it qualifies under their policies (as well as establishment and best interests of the children, etc.) The decision that they make is always with regard to the entirety of the H&C and all of the factors. The threshold for decision-making is essentially, the balance of probabilities.

These same decision-makers decide Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Applications (PRRAs) where they have the authority to make someone a Convention refugee (yup, just like the IRB) but PRRAs are "invited" and you cannot simply pick up an application for one because you're supposed to be right at the point of removal, or removal-ready. Mostly failed claimants apply and they often restate the issues that they had in their refugee bid in accompanying H&C applications.

So, you can say the same thing in two applications but the factors are viewed in different lenses with differing thresholds necessary for an approval.

You haven't made a claim yet (I think) but you did submit H&Cs, and if I was an IRB board member, I'd want to see what you've been saying about your risk factors within your previous H&Cs to see if your story is consistent. However, the purpose of my earlier message was simply this - H&Cs with PRRAs are somewhat similar but are viewed in different lights by the same person making both decisions. PRRA is narrow (fewer approvals but a lower threshold) and H&Cs are viewed with broader considerations and discretion.

It isn't simple, but immigration legislation and regulations are nothing but technicalities. H&C discretionary decision-making can overcome some serious technicalities for a successful applicant.

You have the IRB to deal with and this is another matter all together now.

Good luck

Thanks..I did consult with a consultant my councillor whose ideas was to do the refugee

 

[Buffertiger]

I'll try, H&C applications consider personal factors put forth by the applicant and one of those factors is hardship. Hardship covers a lot of ground but will likely include matters that relate to a person who has made (and lost) a claim to be a refugee in Canada, but it can be elderly parents or something else.

H&C decision-makers assess hardship, whatever is submitted, and decide if it qualifies under their policies (as well as establishment and best interests of the children, etc.) The decision that they make is always with regard to the entirety of the H&C and all of the factors. The threshold for decision-making is essentially, the balance of probabilities.

These same decision-makers decide Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Applications (PRRAs) where they have the authority to make someone a Convention refugee (yup, just like the IRB) but PRRAs are "invited" and you cannot simply pick up an application for one because you're supposed to be right at the point of removal, or removal-ready. Mostly failed claimants apply and they often restate the issues that they had in their refugee bid in accompanying H&C applications.

So, you can say the same thing in two applications but the factors are viewed in different lenses with differing thresholds necessary for an approval.

You haven't made a claim yet (I think) but you did submit H&Cs, and if I was an IRB board member, I'd want to see what you've been saying about your risk factors within your previous H&Cs to see if your story is consistent. However, the purpose of my earlier message was simply this - H&Cs with PRRAs are somewhat similar but are viewed in different lights by the same person making both decisions. PRRA is narrow (fewer approvals but a lower threshold) and H&Cs are viewed with broader considerations and discretion.

It isn't simple, but immigration legislation and regulations are nothing but technicalities. H&C discretionary decision-making can overcome some serious technicalities for a successful applicant.

You have the IRB to deal with and this is another matter all together now.

Good luck

Yes I already file my claim and was found eligible to move do I also did my medical and soon going to apply for my work permit