4,574 result(s)
-
1.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 147 - 2022-02-07
Federal Court Decisionsexamine humanitarian and compassionate considerations through the sole lens of hardship, and immigration officers no longer need to use the terms “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship” so as to limit their capacity to examine all humanitarian and compassionate considerations relevant to a specific case [...] To reasonably apply the teachings of Kanthasamy, the Officer ought to have assessed Mr. Singh’s personal situation and all relevant humanitarian and compassionate considerations with attention. The Officer failed to adequately do so in the specific circumstances of this case. [...] On the contrary, Mr. Singh’s four applications for humanitarian and compassionate relief were processed and considered as if nothing had happened.
-
2.
Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 967 - 2006-08-11
Federal Court Decisionsto be recognized as humanitarian and compassionate. A second look at this case, falls into the definition of humanitarian and compassionate used by the Immigration Appeal Board when defining their jurisdiction under s. 77 of the Immigration Act. They defined humanitarian and compassionate in terms of the case of Chirwa. [...] What was humanitarian and compassionate then remains humanitarian and compassionate today, and family reunification remains a cornerstone of immigration legislation. [...] Officers should examine these situations on a case-by-case basis and determine whether humanitarian and compassionate reasons exist to allow these children into Canada.
-
3.
Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 646 - 2008-05-22
Federal Court Decisions[31] However, an applicant for humanitarian and compassionate relief must carefully set out the basis of his or her claim. [...] [32] In the present case, the applicants’ original humanitarian and compassionate submissions were six pages in length. [...] 6.6 Humanitarian and compassionate grounds Applicants making an application under A25(1) are requesting processing in Canada due to compassionate or humanitarian considerations.
-
4.
Nawaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 976 - 2001-08-30
Federal Court DecisionsIt is true that the compassionate or humanitarian considerations of the case may relate to either the appellant, or any particular applicant, or all of them. [...] In the present case, there was full consideration of proper compassionate and humanitarian factors with one allegedly irrelevant consideration that of the effect of the prior wrongful refusal, being factored in. [...] I conclude that the decision of the Appeal Division on the existence of humanitarian or compassionate factors in the present case was not patently unreasonable.
-
5.
Rodriguez Zambrano v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 481 - 2008-04-15
Federal Court Decisions[38] The most authoritative source with respect to procedural representations about inland humanitarian and compassionate applications is the immigration policy manual, IP 5, entitled "Immigration Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or Compassionate Grounds." [...] Section 5.26 instructs officers that they are not required to elicit information on humanitarian and compassionate factors and that the onus is on the applicants to put forth factors that they feel exist in their case. [...] [44] The submissions filed in support of the humanitarian and compassionate application were relatively extensive. Three pages were devoted to humanitarian and compassionate factors.
-
6.
Aguilar Espino v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 74 - 2007-01-25
Federal Court DecisionsThe humanitarian and compassionate application was therefore refused. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION [...] 6.6. Humanitarian and compassionate grounds Applicants making an application under A25(1) are requesting processing in Canada due to compassionate or humanitarian considerations. [...] This aim can be realised by measuring the compassionate or humanitarian aspects of an individual's case in relation to the legal obstacles to admissibility.
-
7.
Amiri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2019 FC 205 - 2019-02-19
Federal Court Decisions[4] The chronology of events is important in this case, particularly as it relates to Mr. Amiri’s eligibility for relief from his inadmissibility on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [...] VIII. Did the Visa Officer Err in Refusing to Consider Mr. Amiri’s Request for Humanitarian and Compassionate Relief? [46] Mr. Amiri also challenges the visa officer’s finding that he was not eligible for humanitarian and compassionate consideration. [...] case. [60] The visa officer thus did not err in finding that Mr. Amiri’s application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration was governed by the version of subsection 25(1) of IPRA that was in effect after June of 2013, with the result that he was not entitled to be considered for a humanitarian and compassionate
-
8.
Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 1482 - 2021-12-30
Federal Court Decisions1. The Test for Humanitarian and Compassionate Relief [15] Humanitarian and compassionate relief is provided for in subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001 c 27, as follows: [...] This is not the test for a humanitarian and compassionate decision. As set out by Justice McHaffie in Damian, humanitarian and compassionate exemptions are “exceptional” in the sense that they operate as exceptions to the general rule. [...] One of the decisions under review there was a negative decision on an application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [35] With respect to the humanitarian and compassionate decision, I found that the officer asked the wrong question:
-
9.
Chery v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 382 - 2014-04-28
Federal Court Decisions[18] The officer then addressed the applicant’s humanitarian and compassionate grounds. He assessed the humanitarian and compassionate considerations as follows: [...] [18] In this case, the female applicant did indeed raise humanitarian and compassionate considerations. [...] However, in this case, the officer’s decision and CAIPS notes contain no analysis of the humanitarian and compassionate factors raised by the applicant.
-
10.
Samsonov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 1158 - 2006-09-29
Federal Court Decisionson Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds, chapter IP 05, states at paragraph 5.26, “Immigrant Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or Compassionate Grounds”, that immigration officers, in assessing humanitarian and compassionate considerations, must attempt to clarify possible humanitarian and compassionate [...] At paragraph 5.1 of chapter IP 05, it states that applicants bear the onus of establishing humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Paragraph 5.26 states that the onus is on the applicants to put forth any humanitarian and compassionate factors that they feel exist in their case. [...] He therefore had the opportunity to file all of the evidence necessary that he deemed relevant and useful in order to establish the existence of humanitarian and compassionate considerations in his case. FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD
-
11.
Aqeel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 1498 - 2006-12-19
Federal Court Decisions[7] In this case, it is important to bear in mind the general principles that apply to applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (HC applications) in order to better assess some of the applicant’s arguments. [...] [12] The onus is also on the applicant to set out the relevant factors that must be considered on the assessment in order for the officer to find that relevant humanitarian and compassionate grounds exist (IP 5 Manual: Immigrant Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or Compassionate Grounds (the Manual), Citizenship [...] First, the officer determines whether there are sufficient humanitarian or compassionate grounds to grant an exemption under section 25.
-
12.
Garasova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1999-11-02
Federal Court Decisions[15] On October 31, 1997, the applicant made an application within Canada for permanent residence and invoked humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Her husband had withdrawn previous sponsorship of her. [...] As noted, this is the case before me. The guidelines provide: 9.14(3) b) If the request has not yet been processed, the case will be reviewed to determine if the spouse can become successfully established and if there are compassionate or humanitarian considerations. [...] 114(2) decision are outlined -- public policy considerations and humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Immigration officers are instructed, under guideline 9.07, to assure themselves, first, whether a public policy consideration is present, and if there is none, whether humanitarian and compassionate circumstances exist.
-
13.
Maksim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2000-06-08
Federal Court Decisions(2) their solicitor also addressed humanitarian and compassionate grounds focussing on their displacement from Moldova. [...] In these circumstances, it is quite clear that the old guidelines, contained in Chapter 9 of the Immigration Manual: Examination and Enforcement remained applicable in this case. The relevant portion reads: 9.07 HUMANITARIAN AND COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS [...] 1) Officers to Examine the Existence of Humanitarian and Compassionate Circumstances A114(2) also provides for discretion for reasons related to the existence of humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
-
14.
Chéry v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 922 - 2012-07-20
Federal Court DecisionsThere was no mention of humanitarian and compassionate considerations in the officer’s CAIPS notes or the letter. [...] (c) other than in the case of an appeal by the Minister, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case. [...] humanitarian and compassionate considerations because section 65 of the Act prevented it from doing so: “[t]he panel is of the opinion that, in this case, humanitarian and compassionate considerations may exist; however, . . . the panel must respect the applicable law and cannot consider the humanitarian and compassionate
-
15.
Wopara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 352 - 2021-04-23
Federal Court DecisionsThis is the case here with respect to the humanitarian and compassionate ground at issue. [...] [39] In assessing the various criteria recognized in the case law for determining whether humanitarian and compassionate considerations may warrant special relief under paragraph 67(1)(c) of the IRPA, the IAD must determine whether the evidence supports a finding of sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations. [...] Moreover, the fact that these factors were characterized as “neutral” rather than “negative” does not alter the IAD’s conclusion: whether they are neutral or negative, the fact remains that, in either case, they do not establish humanitarian and compassionate grounds warranting special relief.
-
16.
Likale v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 43 - 2015-01-13
Federal Court Decisions[4] His first humanitarian and compassionate application was refused on April 29, 2011. [5] His second application made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was received on October 24, 2011, and refused on October 24, 2013. [...] The respondent points out that the case law has established that officers in charge of reviewing humanitarian and compassionate applications are not required to specifically refer to the international human rights instruments (Okoloubu, at para 50). [...] [40] Moreover, the case law has clearly established that the mere presence of a TSR does not mean that an application made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds will automatically be allowed (Lalane, at para 41; Nkitabungi, at para 12).
-
17.
Salomon Herrada v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 1003 - 2006-08-24
Federal Court DecisionsOn February 25, they applied for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate considerations under subsection 25(1) of the Act. The present application for judicial review concerns the rejection of the application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. [...] [18] The immigration officer rejected the application for permanent residency based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations because he was of the opinion there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant an exemption from the requirement of obtaining a visa outside of Canada. [...] [22] The only issue in this case is the following: 1. Did the immigration officer make a reviewable error in rejecting the application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations made by Mr. Salomon Herrada and his family?
-
18.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lowe - 2022 FC 853 - 2022-06-08
Federal Court Decisionsc) other than in the case of an appeal by the Minister, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case. [...] But there must be humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It would be a misrepresentation of humanitarian and compassionate grounds to seek to find such considerations in a particular employment. [...] The IAD made it very clear that it was granting the appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Therefore, the factor must be humanitarian and compassionate in nature.
-
19.
Wotan Tarik Morales Rizzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1997-01-27
Federal Court Decisionswhatever had become of his humanitarian and compassionate application - never even enquiring of the department - though as between the applicant's lacks, and the respondent's failure to inform him of the fate of his humanitarian and compassionate request, there is very little on which to award success in these proceedings. [...] Should the Minister, whether by incompetence or design (of which there is no evidence here), be permitted to operate in secret and still remove unsuspecting (or even indolent) humanitarian and compassionate applicant every time the Minister's servants make an undisclosed negative humanitarian and compassionate decision? [...] If the applicant should succeed on either the current humanitarian and compassionate application, or on seeking his lawful remedy if any in the event of a negative humanitarian and compassionate consideration, the execution of his removal from Canada (whether to the U.S.A. or Nicaragua) shall be stayed absolutely.
-
20.
Adams v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2009 FC 1193 - 2009-11-19
Federal Court Decisions[3] In April of 2005, she submitted an application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds which was updated and supplemented in January of 2008. [...] [18] In this case, the Immigration Officer reviewed the pertinent facts which had been submitted by the Applicant, including the fact that the Applicant had stated that her sister was without status and had also submitted an application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [...] not become an alternative means to secure permanent residence status unless humanitarian and compassionate grounds are found to justify this remedy. Simply being employed in Canada and acting as a responsible citizen is not sufficient, and other factors must be present justifying humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
-
21.
Paz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2009 FC 412 - 2009-04-24
Federal Court Decisions[14] Section 25 of IRPA gives the Minister the discretion to approve deserving cases for processing within Canada based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [...] Immigration Manual IP5 - Immigration Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or compassionate Grounds, a manual put out by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, provides guidelines on what is meant by Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds . . . [...] Humanitarian and compassionate grounds may exist in cases that would not meet the "unusual and undeserved" criteria but where the hardship (of having to apply for a permanent resident visa from outside of Canada) would have a disproportionate impact on the applicant due to their personal circumstances.
-
22.
Ouedraogo v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2021 FC 310 - 2021-04-09
Federal Court Decisionsaffected, that special relief is warranted on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. However, after considering and weighing all the circumstances of the case and all the relevant factors, the IAD could certainly conclude that the humanitarian and compassionate considerations did not outweigh Mr. Ouedraogo’s [...] [27] I note that, in all cases, the assessment of humanitarian and compassionate considerations is based on the severity of the breach of the residency obligation that led to the removal order. [...] This is not a situation where some of the usual criteria for finding humanitarian and compassionate considerations were present and others were not.
-
23.
Krotov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 438 - 2005-04-01
Federal Court Decisions[4] On May 13, 2004, after reviewing Mr. Krotov's case, the CBSA officer dismissed the residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [...] [5] The applicant is thus challenging the decision by the CBSA officer on his permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but not challenging the PRRA decision. [...] The applicant did not provide any factual support to show that such an apprehension could exist in the case at bar. The PRRA decision and the decision on humanitarian and compassionate grounds are two different and separate decisions and the applicant did not establish that any evidence existed that would justify a
-
24.
Souici v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 66 - 2007-01-26
Federal Court Decisions[7] On April 24, 2006, the immigration officer concluded that the humanitarian and compassionate grounds were insufficient to warrant processing Mr. Souici’s file. [...] [38] The opportunity to present an APR on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is intended to provide recourse in case of unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship, whereas integration in Canadian society is only one factor among others. [...] The humanitarian and compassionate process is designed to provide relief from unusual, undeserved or disproportionate hardship.
-
25.
Hurtado v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 552 - 2007-05-28
Federal Court DecisionsWith respect to humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the visa officer said: I do not find the existence of humanitarian and compassionate grounds in your file. [...] In such an application the visa officer’s terse conclusion that humanitarian and compassionate grounds do not exist might be challenged in light of the recommendation of the Minister’s counsel to allow the appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. [...] I do not find the existence of humanitarian and compassionate grounds in your file, was not in fact the actual decision.