H&C Humanitarian Ground with/or Without Failed refugee claim

[canuck78]

The general consensus in the immigration field is that people’s best plan is take proactive steps to put yourself in the best position if you want to get PR even if this requires leaving and then applying. If I had an active H&C case I would have already been learning French, working in an NOC in high demand in Canada, considering international online eduction that will be recognized by Canada (masters or NOC in demand) if Canadian further education is not possible, etc.

 

[wiener]

Have been predicting parents be banned from applying for H&C for a few years now since 2021 or 2022 when they didn’t create a new EOI and many more started applying for H&C. Raising the length of a superivsa or allowing people to easily extend visits almost indefinitely has also given people the false impression that parent sponsorship is guaranteed and families have not made alternate plans for care in their home countries. I assume many don’t have homes and belongings to return to which is going to become very problematic. Given the volume of the backlog and for legal reasons may be tough to refuse files for only select groups/countries versus wiping out the whole backlog and starting from scratch. At least for the parents and grandparents you could probably legally justify the exclusion because PGP and supervisas exist but for everyone else tough to pick and choose. Not sure how they will justify targeting general H&C but still have very generous country specific programs. Most Ukrainians would qualify for asylum but tough to justify that many from HK would have more H&C issues than many other countries. In general most are actually economic immigrants. The bigger issue is how is Canada going to address current/future conflicts and natural disasters with no capacity. See both are set to be discussed although you would hope a lot of the legwork would have already been done. What a mess!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1969111972261011859

They cannot wipe out the entire backlog without Bill C2. However, I do not anticipate this bill passing in the foreseeable future. Also, cancelling genuine applications would be highly problematic, as this would trigger compensation lawsuits against IRCC versus targeting groups that are not eligible, such as parents/grandparents. I did read a lawyer's comment in the H and C FB group stating that Ukrainians in the inventory should be triaged to the refugee program. Not sure if IRCC can do that. I do not understand why many Ukrainians are applying for H and C (24K) in comparison to asylum. Most nationals of war-torn countries still apply for asylum and get approved. I strongly believe the Hong Kong pathway should not exist since it is a stable and prosperous country.

 

[sting 000]

They cannot wipe out the entire backlog without Bill C2. However, I do not anticipate this bill passing in the foreseeable future. Also, cancelling genuine applications would be highly problematic, as this would trigger compensation lawsuits against IRCC versus targeting groups that are not eligible, such as parents/grandparents. I did read a lawyer's comment in the H and C FB group stating that Ukrainians in the inventory should be triaged to the refugee program. Not sure if IRCC can do that. I do not understand why many Ukrainians are applying for H and C (24K) in comparison to asylum. Most nationals of war-torn countries still apply for asylum and get approved. I strongly believe the Hong Kong pathway should not exist since it is a stable and prosperous country.

Ukrainians will prefer H and C over seeking assylum as assylum claim is approved ,they are not allowed to return to that country which they fled ,many may still have family in Ukraine to return to,if they decides to return in future to Ukraine and CBSA finds out,they will revoke the refugee status.

 

[canuck78]

They cannot wipe out the entire backlog without Bill C2. However, I do not anticipate this bill passing in the foreseeable future. Also, cancelling genuine applications would be highly problematic, as this would trigger compensation lawsuits against IRCC versus targeting groups that are not eligible, such as parents/grandparents. I did read a lawyer's comment in the H and C FB group stating that Ukrainians in the inventory should be triaged to the refugee program. Not sure if IRCC can do that. I do not understand why many Ukrainians are applying for H and C (24K) in comparison to asylum. Most nationals of war-torn countries still apply for asylum and get approved. I strongly believe the Hong Kong pathway should not exist since it is a stable and prosperous country.

I think you are underestimating the pressure on the government to do something about immigration. There may be court challenges if the bill passes but can’t see most conservatives being able to oppose the bill and many BQ would likely vote for the bill as well. The bigger issues is likely some more left leaning Liberals who may object. NDP & green likely won’t support but not a big number. I view the situation quite differently. Cancelling a whole backlog because the system is not functional may actually be easier to justify legally than trying to exclude some groups from the pool. Parents would be an easy target because they have other pathways but there would likely still be legal challenges for that as well. Not sure why you would think most would have grounds for compensation as temporary residents. PR through H&C was never guaranteed. Agree the HK pathway should never have existed. Should have offered a certain number of qualified candidates a 3 year H&C OWP and then they would have to compete for economic immigration. Think Canada was also too generous in creating too many H&C OWP programs. We didn’t even require proof that you were living in an area affected by the earthquake for the Turkey and Syria H&C OWP program. For the Ukrainians there was hope that the war would be short and many would return home. The backlog for asylum is already huge and you actually receive less benefits through H&C, there is no need for legal aid, lower cost of processing for the Ukraine H&C program than an asylum claim, etc. so setting up H&C was better for Canada. Also many do still have family in Ukraine especially fathers, spouses, brothers, grandfathers so H&C will not prevent them from visiting them while an asylum claim would for probably the next 10 years.

 

[wiener]

I think you are underestimating the pressure on the government to do something about immigration. There may be court challenges if the bill passes but can’t see most conservatives being able to oppose the bill and many BQ would likely vote for the bill as well. The bigger issues is likely some more left leaning Liberals who may object. NDP & green likely won’t support but not a big number. I view the situation quite differently. Cancelling a whole backlog because the system is not functional may actually be easier to justify legally than trying to exclude some groups from the pool. Parents would be an easy target because they have other pathways but there would likely still be legal challenges for that as well. Not sure why you would think most would have grounds for compensation as temporary residents. PR through H&C was never guaranteed. Agree the HK pathway should never have existed. Should have offered a certain number of qualified candidates a 3 year H&C OWP and then they would have to compete for economic immigration. Think Canada was also too generous in creating too many H&C OWP programs. We didn’t even require proof that you were living in an area affected by the earthquake for the Turkey and Syria H&C OWP program. For the Ukrainians there was hope that the war would be short and many would return home. The backlog for asylum is already huge and you actually receive less benefits through H&C, there is no need for legal aid, lower cost of processing for the Ukraine H&C program than an asylum claim, etc. so setting up H&C was better for Canada. Also many do still have family in Ukraine especially fathers, spouses, brothers, grandfathers so H&C will not prevent them from visiting them while an asylum claim would for probably the next 10 years.

I would like to correct you on this. Temporary residents are entitled to many fundamental legal protections and due process as citizens. Canadian charter of rights applies to anyone physically present in Canada. If IRCC cancels or rejects files of genuine applicants without giving applicants fair chance to be heard (for example BIOC when a child is a Canadian citizen and has special needs), this will trigger lawsuits for significant compensation and there are a lot of lawyers who will win this for sure. Regarding Ukraine, the issue is that there are a large number of people from Ukraine (24K) applying for H and C, and the quota is quite small (only 2K in 2025), so the math does not math. Furthermore, applicants for H and C need to stay in Canada until they become PR; otherwise, arguments about hardship if removed and establishment are no longer valid. If they apply for asylum, they will get PR faster and also higher chance of being approved as there is no quota. I do not see any advantage of H and C over asylum in that case. The main problem in all H and C pathways is that the target admission quota does not match at all numbers in the inventory, even if IRCC wipe out entire backlog and start from the scratch with more stringent criteria and exclusion of parent/grandparent cases. I think there needs to be pressure by stakeholders (NGO, civil society, lawyers) on IRCC/parliament to increase quota. This is the most appropriate option.
As far as Bill C2 is concerned, I am not saying it may not pass eventually. I mentioned it will likely not pass the vote in its current form.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...5-05/humanitarian-compassionate-programs.html