Humanitarian & Compassionate Grounds

2024 -2025 Trends

H&C applications  increasingly focus on child welfare, mental health, and integration. Approval rates remain around 35–45%, with rejections often tied to weak evidence or poorly documented hardship. Strong community ties and clear risk factors continue to improve success rates.

0 k

As of November 19, 2024, over 27,500 individuals in Canada have been approved under In‑Canada H&C grounds

0 k

As of November 19, 2024, nearly 21,300 individuals in Canada were refused under In‑Canada H&C grounds

What is H&C?

Section 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) grants immigration officers the discretionary authority to approve permanent residence applications for individuals who do not meet the standard legal requirements under IRPA. This provision allows officers to consider exceptional circumstances based on Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds and to exempt applicants from certain statutory or regulatory conditions when warranted. Unlike other immigration pathways, H&C decisions are rooted in discretion and require a holistic evaluation of the applicant’s unique situation.

In making an H&C determination, officers assess a range of factors, including the personal hardship the applicant may face if removed from Canada, their degree of establishment in the country, family and community ties, their contributions to Canadian society, and broader contextual elements such as medical needs or conditions in the country of origin. Applicants must provide compelling, well-documented evidence to justify their request for relief on humanitarian grounds. Each case is fact-specific, and success depends on presenting a full, nuanced picture of the applicant’s circumstances.

“The words “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship” should therefore be treated as descriptive, not as creating three new thresholds for relief separate and apart from the humanitarian purpose of s. 25(1).  As a result, what officers should not do, is look at s. 25(1) through the lens of the three adjectives as discrete and high thresholds, and use the language of “unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship” in a way that limits their ability to consider and give weight to all relevant humanitarian and compassionate considerations in a particular case.”

Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61

Comprehensive Evaluation of Humanitarian and Compassionate Factors

It is important to note that the factors listed are not exhaustive. Immigration officers are not limited to a predefined set of criteria and are expected to take into account all pertinent details submitted by the applicant, along with any other relevant circumstances that arise during the review process. Rather than assessing each element in isolation, officers are instructed to adopt a holistic perspective—considering how various factors interact and influence the applicant’s overall situation. Each case must be approached with care, recognizing that hardship can present itself differently depending on the individual’s context.

Hardship and H&C applications

Hardship plays a vital role in any Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application, reflecting the difficulties an individual would face if required to leave Canada and seek permanent residence from abroad. Traditionally, hardship was interpreted through the narrow standard of being “unusual, undeserved, or disproportionate,” often leading to a fragmented assessment of individual factors. This changed significantly following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61, which clarified that such language should serve as guidance—not rigid criteria—encouraging a more compassionate and contextual evaluation.

Under this revised approach, IRCC officers must avoid treating hardship as a checklist or isolating specific elements of a person’s case. Instead, they are expected to consider how the various aspects of an applicant’s life interact to create a full picture of hardship. The key question is whether, considering all the circumstances and the exceptional nature of H&C relief, “decent, fair-minded Canadians would find it simply unacceptable to deny the relief sought.”

While hardship is no longer a strict legal test, it continues to be a crucial framework for assessing whether an application meets the compassionate purpose of section 25(1) of the IRPA. A strong submission must present hardship as part of a coherent and well-supported narrative that speaks to the unique challenges the applicant would face.

Eligibility for an H&C application

Who is eligible for an H&C application?

A person can make an H&C application if s/he:

  • Is a foreign national currently living in Canada;
  • Needs an exemption from one or more requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or Regulations in order to apply for permanent resident status within Canada;
  • Believes humanitarian and compassionate consideration justifies granting the exemption(s) you need; and
  • Is not eligible to apply for permanent resident status from within Canada in any of these classes:
  • Spouse or Common-Law Partner
  • Live-in Caregiver
  • Protected Person and Convention Refugees; and
  • Temporary Resident Permit Holder

Who is ineligible for an H&C application?

A person cannot make an H&C application if s/he:

  • Is a Canadian citizen;
  • Is a permanent resident;
  • Has submitted an H&C application for which a decision has not been made;
  • Has an outstanding refugee claim;
  • Had a refugee claim that was rejected (including claims that were abandoned) within the last 12 months by either the Refugee Protection Division or the Refugee Appeal division of the IRB;
  • Withdrew a refugee claim within the last 12 months, unless the claim was withdrawn before our hearing at the IRB;
  • Note: This is known as the “12-month bar” There are exceptions to the 12-month bar. You may be excepted if:
  • You provide sufficient credible and objective evidence that there are children under 18 years of age who would be directly and adversely affected if you were removed from Canada (they do not need to be your children); or
  • You provide sufficient credible and objective evidence that you, or a failed refugee claimant included in your application, if returned to home country, would be subject to a risk to life caused by the inability of your country(ies) of nationality, or former habitual residence if you don’t have a nationality, to provide adequate health or medical care.”
  • Is inadmissible on the ground of:

Criminality,

Health grounds,

Financial reasons,

  • Became a designated foreign national within the last 5 years or is a designated foreign national and has received a decision within the last 5 years for any of the following:
  • A refugee claim at the Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
  • An appeal to his/her rejected refugee claim (at the IRB’s Refugee Appeal Division), or
  • An application for a Pre-removal Risk Assessment
  • Note: The Minister of Public safety advises individuals when they become a designated foreign national.

 

Concurrent applications for H&C and renewal of temporary resident status

If applying to renew his/her temporary resident status in Canada (student, visitor, worker, etc.) at the same time as applying for H&C, the applicant must not include the two applications in the same envelope. The applicant must pay for the applications separately and mail the temporary resident renewal application to the Case Processing Centre in Vegreville. H&C applications must be sent to the Backlog Reduction Office in Vancouver (BRO-V).

H&C Factors

When reviewing a Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application, immigration officers consider a broad spectrum of factors to determine whether an exemption from the usual immigration requirements is justified. According to official IRCC guidance, these considerations may include:

  • The applicant’s level of establishment in Canada (for in-Canada applications);

  • Their personal and familial ties to Canada;

  • The best interests of any children directly affected by the decision;

  • Conditions in the country of origin, including risks or instability;

  • Health-related issues, especially where adequate treatment is unavailable abroad;

  • Situations involving family violence;

  • The impact of potential family separation;

  • Continued residence in Canada due to circumstances preventing departure;

  • The applicant’s ability to establish themselves in Canada (for overseas applications); and

  • Any other unique or compelling factors that may support granting relief.

These factors are not assessed in isolation. Officers are expected to take an integrated approach, weighing the full context and interplay of the applicant’s situation in order to reach a fair and compassionate decision.

In reviewing Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications, officers assess a range of interrelated factors to determine whether

…whether, considering the full context and the extraordinary nature of H&C relief, the applicant has shown that denying their request would be seen as clearly unjust or unreasonable by fair and compassionate members of Canadian society.

Evaluating H&C Factors

In humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) applications, no single factor is determinative.
Immigration officers are not applying a rigid checklist to evaluate whether specific criteria are met. Instead, they are expected to review the application in its entirety, considering how the various circumstances relate to one another and form a cohesive picture.

Best Interests of the Child (BIOC)
Among the most significant elements considered in H&C applications is the best interests of any child affected by the outcome. Section 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) explicitly mandates that officers account for how their decision impacts children. This ensures that the rights and welfare of children are given meaningful attention and proper weight in the overall analysis.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Kanthasamy v. Canada emphasized that issues affecting a child’s emotional, physical, social, and cultural well-being must be examined when relevant. Commonly raised factors may include:

  • the child’s age;

  • the degree of dependency between the child and the applicant or sponsor;

  • how well established the child is in Canada;

  • the child’s connection to the country in question;

  • living conditions in that country and their potential effect on the child;

  • any medical needs or special care the child may require;

  • the anticipated impact on the child’s education;

  • gender-related considerations specific to the child.

Adverse Country Conditions
The social, economic, and political environment in the applicant’s country of origin plays an important role in H&C assessments. Challenging conditions—such as widespread violence, instability, systemic discrimination, or lack of access to employment—can heighten the level of hardship associated with removal.

These conditions do not have to be directed personally at the applicant. Systemic issues, such as belonging to an at-risk or marginalized group, may expose an individual to broader harm. General instability, even without targeted persecution, may pose serious challenges to safety or access to basic necessities.

That said, officers are also required to weigh whether internal relocation or state protection in the applicant’s country could reduce or address those hardships. However, such alternatives must be realistic, accessible, and meaningful to be considered a viable remedy.

Establishment in Canada
An applicant’s degree of establishment is a major consideration, especially for those who have developed strong roots and social integration in Canada. Establishment reflects not only how long an individual has been in the country, but also their contributions, support networks, and capacity to thrive in Canadian society. Importantly, there is no set threshold to meet—officers are instructed to examine how removal would disrupt the life the applicant has built. As explained in Truong v. Canada, para. 18:

“…it is not about reaching a magical threshold of establishment so as to put an applicant ‘over the top’ but rather about whether the disruption of that establishment weighs in favour of granting the exemption… it is the degree of disruption, not necessarily the level of establishment, that instructs hardship and that needs to be assessed.”

Key indicators of establishment may include:

Employment and Financial Independence
Stable work, financial self-sufficiency, and participation in the labour market are strong indicators. Supporting documents might include pay stubs, income tax records, or evidence of professional advancement.

Social and Family Connections
Close relationships with relatives or a support network in Canada demonstrate personal integration and reliance. These ties often reflect emotional support and responsibilities that would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.

Community Engagement
Active involvement in volunteer work, local groups, religious institutions, or civic activities shows a strong bond with the broader community. Reference letters, volunteer records, or participation in community events help support this factor.

Education and Skills Development
Enrollment in studies or pursuit of professional training signals an effort to adapt and contribute meaningfully to Canadian society.

Length of Stay in Canada
A longer presence often reflects deeper social and emotional integration, particularly where individuals have established stability over time. Many H&C applicants do not apply immediately but wait until their establishment has matured.

Health Considerations
Medical needs frequently play a central role in H&C applications, especially where an individual’s condition requires treatment that is unavailable or inadequate in their country of origin. Officers must consider not only whether treatment exists abroad, but also whether it is realistically accessible and sufficient in terms of quality and continuity.

Applicants should provide medical documentation from licensed practitioners, explaining their diagnosis, required treatment, and risks posed by lack of care. Reports on the healthcare system in the home country may also help demonstrate limitations or gaps.

Health-related concerns often intersect with other factors. For example, removing someone receiving ongoing care in Canada may result in serious consequences if no comparable care exists elsewhere. Similarly, separation from supportive family members could negatively impact both physical and emotional well-being. Officers are required to assess the overall effect of removal on the applicant’s health in the broader context of their situation.

Family Ties and the Impact of Separation
Close family relationships are an essential part of H&C assessments, especially where removal would break up a household or support system. The emotional and functional disruption caused by separating family members is a serious concern—particularly in cases involving caregiving, dependency, or vulnerable individuals.

These ties are evaluated not just by proximity but by their substance and significance. For instance, if the applicant is a caregiver to an elderly parent or financially and emotionally supports a spouse or child, these connections carry considerable weight.

Separation may also bring indirect consequences, such as psychological distress, disruption to children’s routines, or loss of crucial care arrangements. In such cases, the removal of a family member may create cascading effects that significantly increase hardship.

Unique or Exceptional Circumstances
Some cases involve circumstances that, while not fitting neatly into predefined categories, present compelling grounds for relief. These may include:

  • survivors of domestic abuse or trauma;

  • individuals who face new, unforeseen obstacles to return;

  • applicants who have made outstanding contributions to their communities.

These unique factors often serve to connect or amplify the other elements of an application, underscoring why a compassionate exemption under section 25(1) is justified. For example, an applicant managing a chronic illness while caring for a dependent relative may illustrate how overlapping vulnerabilities make removal particularly harsh. Officers are instructed to evaluate how these unique elements interact with the full context of the applicant’s situation to reach a fair and compassionate decision.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Need help with an H&C Client Support Letter?

 

Contact MIC — our experts will be glad to assist with drafting and providing strong arguments.
Get Started

What is the H&C application process?

Preparing the Application
The process begins with an initial consultation with an immigration lawyer, who will assess your individual circumstances and determine whether a Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application is a suitable option. If appropriate, the next phase involves building a strong, evidence-based application. This includes preparing a personal narrative, collecting supporting documents—such as medical records, letters of support, and psychological assessments—and drafting legal submissions, affidavits, and required immigration forms in collaboration with your lawyer.

  1. Stage 1: Allowed to apply for permanent residence in Canada for humanitarian and compassionate reasons, and (“approval in principle”)
  • Exempts applicant from the in-Canada eligibility criteria based on H&C considerations, so that application for permanent residence from within Canada can proceed
  • IRCC officials send letter informing applicant that:
  • The exemption has been granted
  • The applicant and his/her dependents must still meet any admissibility requirements for which they were not granted an exemption. (Otherwise, the application for permanent resident status may be refused at Stage 2).
  • IRCC officials will then begin processing the application for permanent residence (Stage 2).
  1. Stage 2: Approved for permanent resident status in Canada
  • Allows the foreign national to become a permanent resident (subject to certain requirements [R72 (1)(b) and (c)], if these requirements were not specifically waived in the Stage 1 assessment.)
  • Puts into effect a stay of removal (R233) and allows applicant to apply for work permit [R207 (d) and /or study permit [R215 (g)].
Consult with Expert
Get Started

POST-KANTHASAMY CASELAW

As of February 5, 2018 there were 213 cases decided by the Supreme Court, Federal Court (including Appeals) and IRB-IAD which cited Kanthasamy.Below are a few decisions that show how the Kanthasamy principles are being applied (most address the best interests of the child):

In this Federal Court of Appeal decision from last year, Justice Gleason clarifies that the best interests of the child are not paramount, but only a primary consideration in Humanitarian and Compassionate appeals and only when a request has been made under Section 25, where that analysis takes place. Justice Gleason does conclude that the sole custodial father’s return to Guyana is not in the best interest of the child who is part Gwich’in. She points to the Immigration Enforcement Officer’s assumption that the eight-year-old would be able to return to Canada on her own to continue her cultural connection with her maternal culture as “pure speculation”.

 This case is a good example of how an Officer’s assessment of the best interests of the child should now be conducted since Kanthasamy. Justice Diner wrote:

Visa officers may be presumed to know that applicants would benefit from life in Canada but this does not relieve them of the obligation to identify and examine the interests of any affected child with “significant attention” and care. The Officers, in focusing only on the positives of life in Ecuador and the negatives of life in Canada, did not conduct their examination with the necessary level of attention and care.

Ms. Semana was found inadmissible for misrepresentation, which she appealed based on H&C grounds. She received a negative H&C decision, which she judicially reviewed, arguing that the IAD improperly assessed the best interests of the child (“BIOC”) factor, since it neglected to follow the threestep process for considering the children’s best interests, as set out in Williams v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 166. Justice Gascon disagreed and held that the IAD is required to be “alert, alive and sensitive” to the best interests of the children. Pursuant to Baker and Kanthasamy, the interests must be “well identified and defined” and examined “with a great deal of attention” in light of all the evidence”. However, there is no specific formula required for a BIOC analysis; there is no “magic formula to be used by immigration officers in the exercise of their discretion”. Justice Gascon further noted that in Kanthasamy, the SCC did not adopt the three-step approach laid out in that decision.

This was a decision in which the SCC held that the best interests of the child are not determinative in the analysis. The SCC stated:

It follows that the legal principle of the “best interests of the child” may be subordinated to other concerns in appropriate contexts. For example, a person convicted of a crime may be sentenced to prison even where it may not be in his or her child’s best interests. Society does not always deem it essential that the “best interests of the child” trump all other concerns in the administration of justice. The “best interests of the child”, while an important legal principle and a factor for consideration in many contexts, is not vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice, and hence is not a principle of fundamental justice. (Emphasis added.)

Nevertheless, while the best interest of the child does not necessarily trump other factors for consideration, decision-makers must consider children’s best interest as an important factor, giving them substantial weight, being alert to them, and being sensitive to them.

This case is another judicial review of a negative IAD decision on misrepresentation. Mr. Cortez argued that courts should presume that the actions of parents are indicative of the children’s best interests. Justice Diner said he could not agree that the default position in a BIOC analysis is that whatever the parents do in practice with or for the child is in the child’s best interest; rather, the decision maker can rely on its own assessment.

Ms. Sutherland judicially reviewed a negative decision of her H&C application. Psychological evidence showed that removing Ms. Sutherland from Canada and returning her to her home country would worsen her mental health problems. The court found that in these circumstances, it was not enough for the Officer to simply look at whether mental health care was available in her home country; the Officer had to expressly take into consideration “the effect of removal from Canada would be [on her] mental health”.

 Justice Shore affirmed that the H&C exemption is an exceptional, discretionary remedy. As such, they should only be available for exceptional cases in order to avoid becoming an “alternative immigration stream” or an appeal mechanism.

Mr. Li appealed his removal order based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and the best interests of his child, since his wife was pregnant at the time of the IAD hearing. The IAD had stated the best interests of the child did not need to be considered since the child was not yet born (and therefore had no interests per se). Justice Shore held that the IAD should at least have considered the child’s interest in being reunited with her family in Canada.

This was a judicial review of an H&C decision. Justice Brown confirmed that professional health reports are of value to the extent that they contain health care-related evidence; they should not be rejected because they fail to name a claimant’s assailant(s).

H&C Applications are Complex and Require Strategic Preparation

Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications are among the most challenging immigration processes in Canada. They demand not only a thorough understanding of immigration law but also the ability to construct a compelling narrative supported by credible evidence and grounded in legal reasoning. Success hinges on proving that the applicant’s situation is so exceptional that it justifies an exemption from standard immigration rules—a standard that is difficult to meet.

What makes H&C applications particularly demanding is their holistic nature. Unlike immigration programs with fixed criteria, H&C decisions are based on a full-picture evaluation of the applicant’s circumstances. Officers assess how hardship, establishment, family ties, and other factors interact, requiring the submission to be cohesive, persuasive, and well-documented. A weak or disorganized application often results in refusal, regardless of the applicant’s hardships.

Due to the complexity and high standard involved, professional legal support is strongly recommended. An experienced immigration lawyer can help you develop a clear strategy, gather the necessary documents, and craft a well-argued submission that aligns with the humanitarian purpose of section 25(1) of the IRPA. An H&C application is not just paperwork—it is a detailed legal case that must tell your story in a compelling and credible way.

FAQ about H&C Program

An H&C application offers a pathway to permanent residency for individuals who don’t meet regular immigration criteria but face exceptional circumstances. It considers factors such as hardship, family ties, and establishment in Canada.

Individuals without status, asylum seekers, holders of temporary permits, or those in Canada facing special situations. Applications are generally allowed only from within Canada, often with no valid status.

  • Establishment in Canada (for in-Canada applications)

  • Ties to Canada

  • Best interests of any children affected by the decision

  • Conditions in the country of origin, including risks or hardship

  • Health considerations and access to medical treatment

  • Family violence or personal safety concerns

  • Impact of family separation

  • Continued presence in Canada due to inability to leave

  • Ability to establish in Canada (for overseas applicants)

  • Any other unique or compelling circumstances

This list is not exhaustive. Officers consider all relevant information provided and take a holistic approach, evaluating how the factors interact rather than in isolation.

You can include your spouse or common-law partner and any dependent children in your H&C submission. Their eligibility and personal circumstances will be reviewed alongside yours as part of the full assessment.

Yes. In most cases, applicants may remain in Canada until a final decision is made. However, the ability to work or access healthcare depends on having the appropriate permits.

If you have valid legal status in Canada that authorizes employment, such as a work permit, you may continue to work while your H&C application is being processed. However, if you do not have status or your status has expired, you may need to apply for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) or a work permit, both of which require approval from IRCC. Working without authorization is not permitted and could negatively impact your application.

The success of an H&C application depends on the quality of the evidence and the specific circumstances of the case. Strong establishment in Canada, compelling hardship, and the best interests of affected children can improve the chances of approval. However, because H&C decisions are highly discretionary, outcomes vary and cannot be guaranteed.

Between 18 to 36 months, depending on case complexity and IRCC workloads.

If your application is denied, you may be able to request a judicial review in Federal Court. It’s important to speak with an immigration lawyer promptly to assess your legal options and determine the best course of action.

Yes, but only if new, significant circumstances have arisen that were unknown at the time of the previous application.

No, you cannot apply for H&C while your refugee claim is still pending. To become eligible, you must formally withdraw your refugee claim before your hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

Latest Posts on H&C

Read More

Email Us

For any inquiries or assistance, feel free to reach out to us via email at [email protected]. We aim to respond within 24 hours.

Call Us

You can contact us directly at +1 (647) 464-4526. Our team is available to assist you from Monday to Friday, 9 AM to 6 PM EST.

Visit Us

We welcome you to visit our office located at 295-297 Cosburn Ave., Toronto, Canada, M4J 2M5. Please call ahead to schedule an appointment.