In Kanthasamy’s case, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its most significant immigration judgment in almost 20 years. This judgment has changed the whole outlook of visa officers on how to access applications on Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) grounds in a more holistic and fair approach than earlier and also enlarge the view to look at Section 25(1) when it comes to the Best Interests of Child (BIOC).
This case is all about Immigration-Judicial Review (JR)-Refugee Claim-H&C considerations, and BIOC of 17 year old Jeyakannan Kanthasamy, a Tamil refugee claimant from Sri Lanka seeking H&C exemption to apply for PR from within Canada.
After he was detained and questioned by Sri Lankan army and police suspecting his involvement with the LTTE, fearing for his safety his family sent him to Canada. At the age …show more content…
Consequently, the SCC reiterated that when an applicant is a member of a group that is typically discriminated against in their home country, it is rational to assume that the applicant will face discrimination and hardship. Thus positive H&C consideration may be granted.
Finally the SCC confirmed that the decision maker is required to be “alert, alive and sensitive” to the BIOC. The BIOC must influence the approach in which children will rarely deserve any hardships. The test for officers when assessing child will be their best interest and not the hardship.
In conclusion, this new verdict with a more practical and a humanitarian approach will result in more H&C applications and more challenges against refused applications. However it will definitely come to rescue with a true meaning of H&C grounds to many children faced with the harsh reality of having fled their home countries and coming to
This case is all about Immigration-Judicial Review (JR)-Refugee Claim-H&C considerations, and BIOC of 17 year old Jeyakannan Kanthasamy, a Tamil refugee claimant from Sri Lanka seeking H&C exemption to apply for PR from within Canada.
After he was detained and questioned by Sri Lankan army and police suspecting his involvement with the LTTE, fearing for his safety his family sent him to Canada. At the age …show more content…
Consequently, the SCC reiterated that when an applicant is a member of a group that is typically discriminated against in their home country, it is rational to assume that the applicant will face discrimination and hardship. Thus positive H&C consideration may be granted.
Finally the SCC confirmed that the decision maker is required to be “alert, alive and sensitive” to the BIOC. The BIOC must influence the approach in which children will rarely deserve any hardships. The test for officers when assessing child will be their best interest and not the hardship.
In conclusion, this new verdict with a more practical and a humanitarian approach will result in more H&C applications and more challenges against refused applications. However it will definitely come to rescue with a true meaning of H&C grounds to many children faced with the harsh reality of having fled their home countries and coming to