IRCC Updates H&C Instructions on June 11, 2026

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada updated several of its Program Delivery Instructions concerning H&C Instructions on June 11, 2026.

At first glance, the changes to the IRCC H&C (Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations) instructions are difficult to identify. IRCC changed the modification dates of several pages, but did not publish a consolidated redline showing the previous and revised wording.

A review of the revised pages suggests that IRCC has not created a new H&C program or changed the legal test under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Instead, the department has reorganized some instructions, clarified how officers should assess certain factors, and expanded the operational guidance available to decision-makers.

The revisions are nevertheless important. They provide useful guidance on the best interests of the child, de facto family members, establishment in Canada, reconsideration requests, inadmissibility and statelessness.

What are humanitarian and compassionate considerations?

Subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows the Minister, or a delegated decision-maker, to grant permanent resident status or an exemption from certain requirements of the Act or Regulations when humanitarian and compassionate considerations justify the relief.

H&C relief remains exceptional. It is not an alternative immigration program for every person who does not qualify under another category.

IRCC instructs officers to consider the relevant circumstances globally. Officers should not assess each factor in isolation. The question is whether all relevant circumstances, considered together, justify the requested exemption. Where a child is directly affected, the officer must also take the child’s best interests into account.

The June 2026 revisions do not change these fundamental principles. However, they affect how applicants and representatives should organize and support their submissions.

The best interests of the child receive more detailed treatment

The revised instructions confirm that officers must assess the best interests of every child directly affected by the decision. The child may be Canadian or foreign-born and may live inside or outside Canada.

Importantly, the child need not have a particular legal or biological relationship with the applicant. The relevant question is whether the child will be directly affected by the H&C decision.

However, applicants must clearly raise and document the child’s circumstances. IRCC now expressly states that an officer may find that the best interests of the child have not been sufficiently demonstrated where the applicant provides inadequate evidence.

The revised instructions identify several matters that may be relevant, including:

• the child’s age;
• the degree of dependency between the child and the applicant;
• the child’s establishment in Canada;
• custody and caregiving arrangements;
• the child’s connection to another country;
• conditions in that country;
• medical conditions or special needs;
• educational consequences;
• matters relating to the child’s gender; and
• the child’s own views.

IRCC also directs officers to consider intersectional identity factors through a Gender-Based Analysis Plus lens. A child’s disability, gender, cultural identity, language, immigration status or other personal circumstances may affect how the child experiences separation, relocation or instability.

The revised page also addresses guardianship and kafala arrangements. Because kafala is not legally equivalent to adoption, representatives must clearly document the actual caregiving relationship, the child’s dependency and the consequences of separation.

For the formal BIOC analysis, the person must have been under 18 at the time IRCC received the application. The circumstances of an adult child may still be relevant to the global H&C assessment, but IRCC will not treat the case as a formal BIOC matter if the person was already 18 when the application was received.

Practical implications for applicants

A general statement that removal will be “hard on the children” is unlikely to be sufficient.

A persuasive submission should identify each affected child separately and explain:

1. the relationship between the child and the applicant;
2. the child’s present circumstances;
3. the realistic options if the application is refused;
4. the probable effect of each option on the child; and
5. The evidence supporting those conclusions.

School records, medical reports, psychological assessments, parenting records, custody documents, proof of financial dependency and statements reflecting the child’s views may all be relevant.

De facto family members remain relevant.

IRCC previously addressed de facto family members through a separate instruction page. The subject now appears within the broader instructions on family relationships.

This reorganization does not eliminate de facto family members as an H&C consideration.

IRCC defines de facto family members as people who do not meet the formal definition of a family-class member but whose dependency makes them functionally part of a nuclear family. Examples may include:

• an adult son or daughter;
• a sibling left alone in the country of origin;
• an elderly aunt or uncle;
• a person in a guardianship relationship; or
• An unrelated person who has lived with and depended on the family for a significant period.

Officers may consider the level and duration of dependency, the stability of the relationship, the consequences of separation, the person’s financial and emotional needs, the availability of alternative support and documentary evidence of the relationship.

What representatives should demonstrate

It is not enough to label someone a de facto family member. The evidence should show that the relationship is genuine, stable and characterized by meaningful dependency.

Relevant evidence may include:

• a history of living together;
• financial transfers;
• joint property or bank accounts;
• insurance policies or wills;
• evidence of caregiving;
• medical evidence;
• regular communications;
• affidavits from people familiar with the relationship; and
• evidence showing the absence of a realistic alternative support.

The revised family-relationships page also incorporates considerations of family violence. Officers are instructed to approach these cases sensitively, including situations in which a person lost a sponsorship opportunity after leaving an abusive relationship.

Establishment in Canada requires context.

IRCC continues to recognize establishment as an important factor in an in-Canada H&C application. However, the revised instructions provide a more structured framework for assessing it.

No fixed number of years automatically establishes a person in Canada. IRCC states that a significant degree of establishment generally takes several years, but the assessment remains fact-specific.

Officers may consider:

• the length of the applicant’s residence in Canada;
• employment history;
• financial management;
• community involvement;
• volunteer activities;
• professional, linguistic or other studies;
• residential stability; and
• the applicant’s civil record.

The instructions also direct officers to examine why the applicant remained in Canada. This includes whether the circumstances were beyond the applicant’s control, whether an administrative deferral of removal or temporary suspension of removals applied, and whether the applicant cooperated with the government in obtaining travel documents.

Examples of circumstances beyond the applicant’s control may include:

• an ADR or TSR affecting the country of removal;
• several years spent waiting for a decision while holding a valid status; or
• another genuine inability to leave Canada.

By contrast, IRCC identifies refusing to cooperate with a passport application, destroying travel documents or deliberately remaining underground as circumstances that may attract negative weight.

Establishment is more than the passage of time.

This distinction is important. The length of a person’s presence in Canada is not the same as the quality of their establishment.

An effective submission should explain both:

1. what the applicant has built in Canada; and
2. the circumstances under which that establishment developed.

Where an ADR, TSR, a pending application, or another external barrier prevented departure, the submission should carefully document that history. Where the applicant had no status for part of the relevant period, the representative should address the issue directly rather than leaving the officer to draw an unsupported negative inference.

IRCC may consider the establishment up to the time of the Stage 1 assessment. Applicants should therefore continue updating their evidence while the application remains in process.

Reconsideration instructions are more detailed.

One of the most significant June 2026 revisions concerns requests to reconsider an H&C decision.

IRCC confirms that when an applicant or representative requests reconsideration, an officer must consider the request and decide whether to exercise discretion to reopen the matter. However, reconsideration remains available only in exceptional circumstances.

Disagreement with the result is not enough.

IRCC describes reconsideration as a two-step process:

1. The officer decides whether to reopen the case.
2. If the case is reopened, the officer reviews the original record and new submissions before deciding whether to change the result.

The instructions identify several relevant factors, including:

• a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness;
• a clerical, jurisdictional or delegation error;
• new facts arising after the original decision;
• the materiality and reliability of new evidence;
• Why was the previously available evidence not submitted earlier;
• the time elapsed since the original decision;
• concerns involving fraud or misrepresentation;
• whether the evidence belongs in a new application; and
• the effect of any Federal Court proceedings or decision.

If an officer refuses to reconsider, the officer should justify that decision. IRCC also requires that the reasons for granting or refusing a reopening be recorded.

Reconsideration is not a second submission opportunity

A reconsideration request should not simply repeat the original H&C arguments or provide a better version of a case that could have been presented properly at the outset.

The request should identify a specific reason for reopening. For example:

• The officer overlooked material evidence already on file;
• The decision relied on a factual error;
• The applicant did not receive a required procedural fairness opportunity;
• The officer applied the wrong legal or policy framework;
• Genuinely new and material evidence arose after the refusal; or
• An administrative or clerical error affected the result.

The request should then explain how correcting the error or considering the new information could reasonably affect the decision.

IRCC may revisit a positive Stage 1 decision

The revised reconsideration instructions also address situations in which new negative information arises after approval in principle.

A positive Stage 1 assessment is an interim decision. It does not confer permanent resident status.

If a new inadmissibility or another significant negative factor arises, IRCC may revisit the positive Stage 1 assessment. However, before reversing that decision, the officer must allow the applicant to respond.

This is an important procedural fairness protection. It may apply where IRCC discovers a criminal issue, a family member’s inadmissibility, possible misrepresentation or another material matter after Stage 1 approval.

Applicants must therefore continue disclosing material changes while their applications are being processed.

Overseas applicants must demonstrate an ability to establish

The revised overseas instructions focus on whether the applicant is likely to establish successfully in Canada and avoid becoming a burden on Canadian society.

Officers may consider the applicant’s resources, employment history, financial management and meaningful support from people or organizations in Canada. Employment opportunities offered through Canadian connections may also be relevant.

An overseas H&C submission should therefore include a forward-looking settlement plan. Evidence may address:

• intended accommodation;
• financial resources;
• employment prospects;
• professional credentials;
• language ability;
• family support;
• community connections; and
• access to settlement or medical services.

A promise of general support from a relative may carry less weight than a detailed plan supported by financial records, housing documents, employment information and evidence of the supporting person’s capacity.

Inadmissibility must be addressed directly.

The revised H&C instructions continue to permit exemptions from certain inadmissibility provisions where the legislation allows such relief.

Officers must assess inadmissibility as part of the global H&C analysis. Where the officer lacks the delegated authority to grant the exemption but believes relief may be justified, the case should be referred to the appropriate delegated decision-maker.

Applicants should identify each exemption they require. Although IRCC may sometimes consider an exemption on its own initiative, applicants should not rely on the officer to identify and develop the issue for them.

Criminal inadmissibility

For criminal inadmissibility under section 36 of IRPA, the officer may consider:

• the nature of the conviction;
• the sentence;
• the passage of time;
• whether the conduct was isolated or repeated;
• rehabilitation;
• relevant psychiatric or behavioural factors; and
• The circumstances surrounding the offence.

If charges remain outstanding and the H&C factors might otherwise support approval, IRCC may wait for the criminal proceedings to conclude before making the final decision.

Medical inadmissibility

A medical inadmissibility must generally be confirmed through an immigration medical examination before IRCC can grant an exemption from it.

Where an excessive-demand finding is involved, IRCC may consider treatment costs, arrangements to cover care, private resources, the applicant’s ability to become self-supporting and the anticipated demand on Canadian health or social services.

Inadmissible or unexamined family members

All family members must generally be examined, even if they are not accompanying the principal applicant.

IRCC may waive examination or related admissibility requirements only in exceptional circumstances. The applicant should demonstrate that every reasonable effort was made to have the family member examined.

IRCC also warns that waiving the examination may prevent the applicant from sponsoring that family member later under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR. The waiver should not be used to conceal or overcome a known inadmissibility of a family member abroad.

Social assistance and section 39

An applicant may receive a positive Stage 1 assessment while receiving social assistance. Dependency may be temporary, particularly where the person has not been authorized to work.

However, continued dependency near finalization may result in refusal unless H&C considerations justify an exemption from section 39. IRCC may briefly delay finalization where the applicant appears likely to become self-supporting in the near future.

The revised family-violence instructions are particularly relevant here. A person escaping abuse may need temporary social assistance because of trauma, housing instability, child-care obligations or barriers to employment. Officers may consider these circumstances when deciding whether to grant an exemption.

Statelessness requires a cumulative evidentiary record.

IRCC’s revised statelessness instructions distinguish between de jure and de facto statelessness.

A de jure stateless person is not considered a national by any state under the operation of its laws. A de facto stateless person may technically possess a nationality but cannot establish or effectively benefit from it.

Possible evidence includes:

• confirmation from a government that the applicant is not a citizen;
• correspondence showing that authorities refused to issue nationality documents;
• relevant citizenship legislation;
• evidence from UNHCR or other credible organizations;
• witness declarations;
• evidence concerning birth registration or parentage; and
• confirmation that CBSA could not obtain a travel document.

IRCC may also examine whether the applicant cooperated in efforts to establish nationality or obtain travel documents. An inability to obtain a passport, without evidence of genuine cooperation and the applicable nationality laws, may not establish statelessness.

Former citizens and permanent residents

The revised instructions also address former Canadian citizens and former permanent residents seeking relief on H&C grounds.

IRCC instructs officers to confirm that the person previously held the relevant status and has exhausted other available remedies. Officers may then consider:

• how and why the person lost status;
• whether the person would have lost that status under current legislation;
• the hardship resulting from refusal;
• family members in Canada;
• cultural and emotional ties to Canada;
• support available in another country; and
• establishment in Canada.

Previous status in Canada does not automatically justify approval. However, the history and circumstances surrounding the loss of that status may form an important part of the global assessment.

What do the June 2026 H&C changes mean in practice?

The revised IRCC H&C instructions do not replace the individualized and discretionary nature of H&C decision-making. They do, however, give applicants and representatives a clearer indication of the questions officers may ask.

The most important practical lessons are:

1. Connect every claim to evidence. General assertions about hardship, children, dependency or establishment are unlikely to be persuasive without supporting documentation.
2. Explain the factual context. The establishment should include an explanation of why the applicant remained in Canada and whether the circumstances were beyond their control.
3. Identify each exemption. Where inadmissibility or non-compliance is involved, the submission should identify the precise statutory or regulatory requirement from which relief is requested.
4. Treat each child individually. BIOC should not appear as a generic paragraph added near the end of the submission.
5. Document functional family relationships. De facto family dependency must be demonstrated through the history, quality and consequences of the relationship.
6. Use reconsideration selectively. A strong reconsideration request identifies an exceptional error, procedural problem or material new fact. It does not merely express disagreement.
7. Keep the application updated. New establishment, medical information, family changes, criminal matters and other material developments should be disclosed while the application remains in process.

Conclusion

IRCC’s June 11, 2026, revisions are best understood as clarifications of the organization of the department’s H&C decision-making framework.

The legal foundation remains subsection 25(1) of the IRPA, and officers must continue to conduct a global assessment of all relevant circumstances. Nevertheless, the revised instructions provide more detailed operational guidance on BIOC, de facto family members, establishment, reconsideration, inadmissibility, social assistance and statelessness.

For applicants, the central lesson remains the same: compelling circumstances must be explained clearly and supported with credible, relevant and organized evidence.

This article provides general information about Canadian immigration law and policy. It does not constitute legal advice or a case-specific assessment.

Official resources

• IRCC: H&C Assessment and Processing Instructions
• IRCC: Best Interests of a Child
• IRCC: Dealing With Family Relationships
• IRCC: Establishment in Canada
• IRCC: Ability to Establish in Canada for Overseas Applications
• IRCC: Reconsideration of an H&C Decision
• IRCC: Dealing With Inadmissibility
• IRCC: Criminal Inadmissibility and H&C
• IRCC: Medical Inadmissibility and H&C
• IRCC: Inadmissibility of Family Members
• IRCC: Financial Inadmissibility and Social Assistance
• IRCC: Statelessness in an H&C Assessment
• IRCC: Former Canadian Citizens or Permanent Residents
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Section 25
• IRCC Guide 5291: Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations