In my practice, I have seen firsthand how timely legal representation can make the difference between removal from Canada and a second chance to remain. In one case, my client, a permanent resident, was facing removal due to his criminal history in Canada. The situation was serious, but it was not irreversible.
Fortunately, the client contacted me at a critical moment: a report under section 44 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) was about to be written. Before drafting the report, the reviewing officer scheduled an interview. I attended that interview with my client and made detailed legal representations on his behalf.
Prior to the interview, we gathered all relevant information that could influence the officer’s decision on whether to prepare the s. 44 report and refer the matter to an admissibility hearing. We emphasized the client’s strong establishment in Canada, including the fact that he was married and that his immediate family resided here. While officers involved in removal proceedings generally owe a limited duty of procedural fairness, there are circumstances in which the Minister, or a delegate, has the discretion to consider humanitarian and compassionate factors and to halt removal proceedings before they begin.
My office assembled extensive supporting documentation such as letters from the client’s church confirming his long-standing and active involvement, letters from friends and family attesting to his character, and sworn declarations from his parents explaining the crucial role he played in their lives, including assisting them with medical appointments. We also presented evidence regarding the dangerous conditions in the country where the client had originally resided.
Taken together, these factors mattered. The reviewing officer exercised discretion, and removal proceedings were stopped.
There are, however, many cases where appealing a finding of inadmissibility is simply not possible. Permanent residents who are found inadmissible for serious criminality, particularly those who have received a sentence of six months or more in a Canadian prison, are barred from appealing to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
I teach at colleges in Toronto and with my students I often stress that section 25 of the IRPA, which allows for humanitarian and compassionate consideration, can sometimes be a lifeline. That said, the current reality is definitely sobering: humanitarian applications now face processing times that can exceed ten years due to overwhelming backlogs. In many cases, this remedy is no longer practical or effective.
As a result, the only viable strategy is to make strong, equitable submissions directly to the Minister after a section 44 report is written but before a decision is made to commence removal proceedings. Acting early, presenting compelling humanitarian evidence, and having experienced legal counsel involved at the right moment can, in some cases, change your outcome entirely.