Need help with your Canadian immigration matter?
Our immigration team can help with applications, refusals, appeals, and next steps. Contact us today for a consultation.
Direct Answer: On July 22, 2026, IRCC published operational guidance stating that officers cannot use humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) discretion under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) to waive eligibility conditions created by an in-Canada permanent residence-granting temporary public policy. A person applying under such a policy must satisfy every condition imposed by the Minister. If the applicant does not meet a policy condition and asks the officer to overlook it on H&C grounds, IRCC instructs the officer to refuse the public policy application. The refusal letter should acknowledge the H&C request and explain that a separate permanent residence application on H&C grounds — with applicable fees — is required if those considerations are to be assessed. This guidance does not abolish H&C relief. It clarifies the legal boundary between exemptions from requirements of the Act and conditions belonging to a separate ministerial public policy.
At a Glance
- New IRCC guidance: July 22, 2026 — operational instructions for officers handling H&C requests in temporary public policy PR applications
- Key rule: Public policy eligibility conditions cannot be waived through subsection 25(1) H&C discretion
- Officers must identify the unmet requirement and note that H&C cannot cure it within the same application
- A separate H&C permanent residence application with applicable fees is required if H&C assessment is sought
- Applicants who satisfy every public policy condition are unaffected — the guidance applies only where a condition is not met
- Procedural fairness applies in most cases, but a second document submission opportunity is not always guaranteed
- Federal Court judicial review deadlines can be very short — obtain legal advice immediately after any refusal
- H&C is not cancelled — it must be pursued through a legally appropriate separate process
IRCC’s July 2026 guidance draws a firm line between humanitarian and compassionate relief under section 25(1) of IRPA and the eligibility conditions imposed by a temporary public policy under section 25.2. Applicants must identify which legal requirement is actually at issue before assuming that H&C discretion can solve an eligibility problem.
Why This Guidance Matters
Canadian immigration law uses several different legal tools that can look similar from the applicant’s perspective. A person may submit one permanent residence application, attach a request based on hardship or family circumstances, and reasonably believe that an officer can consider the entire situation together. The July 2026 guidance explains that this assumption can be legally wrong when the underlying pathway is a temporary public policy.
Temporary public policies are often introduced to respond quickly to humanitarian crises, labour-market needs, family reunification concerns, or groups facing unusual circumstances. They can provide exemptions from selected provisions of IRPA or its Regulations. But they are not open-ended invitations for officers to redesign the policy case by case. The Minister defines the policy, the eligible group, the conditions, and the exemptions that may be granted.
IRCC’s position is that subsection 25(1) authorizes exemptions from requirements of the Act — not from a condition contained in a ministerial public policy. The result is a strict threshold: an applicant must qualify under the policy as written before permanent residence can be granted through that policy.
This distinction is especially important for applicants who are close to qualifying but miss one technical requirement — a date, a relationship, a residence condition, a document, or another condition stated in the public policy. Compelling personal circumstances do not automatically allow the officer to forgive the missing condition within the same application.
What IRCC Published on July 22, 2026
IRCC’s operational page is titled “Humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations: In-Canada permanent residence (PR) granting public policies where H&C requests were also made.” It is publicly available guidance for IRCC staff and addresses situations where a person applies for permanent residence under an in-Canada public policy and also asks for H&C consideration.
| IRCC Instruction | Practical Meaning |
|---|---|
| Applicants must meet all public policy conditions | An officer cannot approve a person who falls outside the eligibility language chosen by the Minister |
| Unmet public policy conditions cannot be waived under s.25(1) | Hardship or compassionate facts do not create authority to rewrite the policy |
| The public policy application should be refused | The decision is on that specific pathway — not a separate H&C determination |
| The refusal should acknowledge the H&C request | IRCC should explain that the request cannot cure the missing public policy condition |
| A separate H&C application is required for H&C assessment | The applicant must start a distinct process and pay applicable fees if eligible |
Important distinction: A refusal under the public policy is not necessarily a finding that the applicant’s humanitarian circumstances are weak. It may mean only that the officer had no legal authority to use those circumstances to waive a policy condition in that application.
The Legal Framework: Section 25(1) vs Section 25.2
The Legal Distinction at a Glance
Section 25(1) Applicant-requested H&C relief
May address eligible requirements of IRPA or the Regulations, subject to statutory limits.
Section 25.2 Ministerial public policy
Applies where the applicant complies with the conditions imposed by the Minister.
Practical result Policy conditions must still be met
H&C does not give an officer authority to rewrite a temporary public policy.
Subsection 25(1): Applicant-Requested H&C Relief
Subsection 25(1) of IRPA allows a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet requirements of the Act to request consideration based on humanitarian and compassionate factors. In appropriate cases, the Minister or a delegated officer may grant permanent resident status or an exemption from applicable requirements of the Act.
H&C relief is exceptional and discretionary. It is not a substitute for every ordinary immigration program. IRCC identifies factors such as establishment in Canada, family ties, the best interests of directly affected children, and the consequences the person may face if relief is not granted. Not every legal barrier can be overcome through H&C relief — the Act contains restrictions, including limits related to certain inadmissibilities and procedural bars.
Section 25.2: Ministerial Temporary Public Policies
Section 25.2 gives the Minister authority to establish public policies that may grant permanent residence or exemptions from provisions of the Act or Regulations based on public policy considerations. These policies are designed for a defined class of people who share common circumstances.
A public policy can be generous while remaining precise. It may exempt applicants from certain normal requirements, but only if they satisfy the conditions written into the policy — residence, nationality, relationship, work history, prior status, documentary proof, deadlines, or other criteria.
IRCC’s July 2026 guidance relies on the principle that the conditions of the public policy are not themselves requirements of the Act. Because subsection 25(1) concerns exemptions from the Act, an officer cannot use it as authority to exempt someone from a condition created by the Minister under section 25.2.
| Issue | H&C under s.25(1) | Temporary Public Policy under s.25.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Who initiates it? | Usually the applicant makes a written request | The Minister establishes a policy for a defined group |
| What is assessed? | Individual hardship and compassionate circumstances | Whether the applicant meets every condition of the policy |
| What may be exempted? | Eligible requirements of IRPA or the Regulations, subject to restrictions | Only the provisions specifically addressed by the policy |
| Can the officer change the pathway’s conditions? | No | No — the officer applies the policy as written |
| What if a policy condition is unmet? | A separate H&C application may be considered if legally available | The public policy application should be refused |
Why a Temporary Public Policy Is Not the Same as an Immigration Class
Applicants often see a temporary public policy as another immigration program. Legally, the mechanism is different. A public policy is a ministerial instrument that provides specific facilitation to people who meet specified conditions. It may temporarily create access to permanent residence for a group that would not otherwise have a direct pathway.
This matters because the processing officer’s discretion is bounded by the instrument. If the policy says the principal applicant must have been in Canada on a certain date, maintain a particular relationship, submit before a deadline, or fall within a designated cohort, the officer cannot substitute a different condition merely because the applicant has a sympathetic explanation. The Minister could draft a policy that expressly permits flexibility — but unless the existing policy gives the officer that authority, the officer’s task is to determine whether the written conditions are met.
How Officers Assess a Public Policy PR Application
IRCC’s guidance describes a structured assessment. The following framework applies generally:
- Identify the applicable public policy and the version in force for the application
- Assess the principal applicant against each condition listed by the Minister
- Assess accompanying family members individually where the policy requires it
- Determine whether the applicant meets ordinary statutory and regulatory requirements not exempted by the policy
- Apply procedural fairness where concerns arise and fairness is required
- Approve only if all policy conditions and remaining legal requirements are satisfied
- Refuse if a required public policy condition is not met, identifying the unmet requirement
Document Completeness and Procedural Fairness
IRCC states that officers must follow procedural fairness in most cases when they are not satisfied that an applicant meets the public policy criteria. However, IRCC also notes an important exception: if the public policy itself requires applicants to provide all supporting documentation necessary to establish that they meet the conditions, the officer may not be required to give a second opportunity to submit missing information.
Practical lesson: Do not submit first and plan to explain later. Temporary public policy applications can be highly document-driven, and some policies expressly place the burden on the applicant to provide all proof needed for assessment.
What H&C Factors Usually Include
The July 2026 instruction does not narrow the types of circumstances that may matter in a proper H&C application. It clarifies where those circumstances must be assessed. Common H&C factors may include:
- Establishment in Canada — employment, education, community involvement, and a record of stability
- Family relationships in Canada and the practical consequences of separation
- The best interests of any child directly affected by the decision
- Health conditions, treatment needs, disability, or caregiving responsibilities, supported by evidence
- Conditions in the country of return, considered as part of the overall hardship analysis
- The person’s immigration history, efforts to regularize status, and reasons for any non-compliance
- Any unusual, undeserved, or disproportionate hardship arising from refusal
H&C applications are fact-intensive. The existence of one favourable factor does not determine the result. Officers consider the evidence cumulatively alongside any negative factors. A strong application explains not only what the circumstances are but why they justify the exceptional relief requested under the law.
What H&C Cannot Do Inside a Public Policy Application
| Applicant’s Situation | Can H&C Cure It Inside the Public Policy Application? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Missed a policy-specific filing deadline | Generally no | The deadline is a condition of the policy, not a requirement of IRPA that the officer can waive under s.25(1) |
| Does not belong to the nationality or cohort named in the policy | No | The applicant falls outside the group chosen by the Minister |
| Cannot prove a required family relationship | No, unless the relationship is actually established with better evidence | H&C cannot replace an eligibility condition — evidence may clarify whether it is met |
| Fails a requirement of IRPA that the policy does not exempt | Possibly, depending on the requirement and legal restrictions | This may engage s.25(1), but the applicant must still meet every policy condition |
| Has compelling hardship but meets none of the policy conditions | No | A separate H&C application may be the appropriate vehicle if available |
Who Is Most Likely to Be Affected
The guidance specifically addresses in-Canada permanent residence-granting public policies where the applicant also makes an H&C request. Applicants who satisfy all public policy conditions remain assessed under the policy in the ordinary way.
The greatest risk arises where an applicant knows or suspects that one condition is not met and includes an H&C submission asking the officer to overlook that defect. Examples include missing a required date, not fitting the defined relationship category, lacking required status or residence, applying outside the eligible period, or failing to provide evidence expressly required by the policy.
It may also affect applicants whose representatives previously relied on broad H&C language without carefully separating public policy conditions from requirements of IRPA. The July guidance makes clear that the source of each requirement must be analyzed separately.
Illustrative Scenarios
Scenario 1: The Applicant Missed a Policy Deadline
A temporary public policy required applications to be received by a specified date. The applicant submitted after the deadline and explained that a family emergency prevented timely filing. Even if the explanation is compassionate, the officer cannot use subsection 25(1) to extend a deadline that is a condition of the public policy. The public policy application should be refused unless the policy itself contains a mechanism that preserves eligibility.
Scenario 2: The Applicant Meets the Policy but Needs an IRPA Exemption
An applicant satisfies every condition of the public policy but faces a separate requirement under IRPA or the Regulations that the public policy does not exempt. Depending on the nature of the requirement and any statutory restrictions, an H&C request may still be relevant. The July guidance does not say H&C can never be considered alongside a public policy application — it says H&C cannot exempt the applicant from the public policy’s own conditions.
Scenario 3: The Evidence Is Incomplete but Eligibility Exists
The applicant actually meets a policy condition but the submitted documents do not clearly prove it. This is different from asking for the condition to be waived. A procedural fairness response may provide stronger records or clarify inconsistencies. Success depends on proving that the requirement was met, not on persuading the officer to ignore it.
Scenario 4: The Applicant Has Strong H&C Circumstances but Is Outside the Policy
A person has lived in Canada for many years, has Canadian-born children, strong community ties, and significant hardship on return, but does not fall within the group named by the public policy. The public policy route may fail, yet those circumstances could potentially be assessed in a separate H&C application if the person is legally eligible to submit one.
Procedural Fairness: Will IRCC Give You a Chance to Respond?
Procedural fairness is a fundamental principle in Canadian administrative decision-making. IRCC’s July guidance says officers must follow procedural fairness in most public policy cases where they are not satisfied that the criteria are met. A letter may identify a concern about credibility, an apparent inconsistency, missing proof, or the interpretation of a fact relevant to eligibility.
Fairness does not require IRCC to coach the applicant, identify every weakness, or provide repeated opportunities to complete an application. Where the policy clearly places the obligation on the applicant to submit all necessary supporting documents, IRCC indicates that an additional request may not be required.
Responding to a fairness letter: A strong response should identify the exact concern, cite the policy language, organize supporting evidence by requirement, explain inconsistencies directly, and avoid unsupported assertions. Deadlines are often short — seek legal advice promptly.
What a Refusal Letter Should Explain
According to IRCC’s instruction, the officer should refuse the public policy application and explicitly identify the requirement that was not met. If an H&C request was made to overcome a public policy condition, the letter should acknowledge the request and explain that H&C cannot waive that condition. The officer should also advise that a separate H&C permanent residence application — with applicable fees — is required for H&C assessment.
Since May 26, 2026, IRCC has stated that officer decision notes are provided with most permanent residence refusal letters (though H&C applications are excluded from that initiative). Where applicable, those notes may provide additional insight into the reasoning. Applicants should preserve the full refusal package and obtain advice before deciding whether to reapply or seek judicial review.
Can the Applicant File a Separate H&C Application?
IRCC’s guidance says that a person who wants H&C considerations assessed must reapply for permanent residence on H&C grounds and pay the applicable fees. This does not mean that every refused public policy applicant is automatically eligible or likely to succeed.
| Possible Next Step | When It May Fit | Key Caution |
|---|---|---|
| Correct and reapply under the public policy | Policy remains open and applicant can now prove every condition | Confirm the refusal issue is curable and intake has not closed |
| Apply through another immigration program | Applicant independently qualifies under another class | Do not assume facts accepted in one process carry over automatically |
| Submit a separate H&C application | Exceptional circumstances may justify exemptions from eligible IRPA requirements | H&C is discretionary, evidence-heavy, and subject to statutory restrictions |
| Seek Federal Court judicial review | Refusal may involve legal error, unfairness, or unreasonable treatment of evidence | Deadlines are strict and the Court does not simply re-decide the application |
| Take no immediate filing step | Applicant needs time to obtain records or stabilize another pathway | Status, removal, and limitation consequences must be reviewed immediately |
When Federal Court Judicial Review May Be Considered
A refused applicant may consider whether Federal Court judicial review is appropriate. Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits and does not allow the applicant to submit an entirely new case. The Court generally examines whether the decision was lawful, procedurally fair, and reasonable based on the record before the officer.
A challenge might arise if the officer misunderstood which requirement was part of the public policy, failed to recognize that the applicant actually met the condition, denied required procedural fairness, ignored material evidence, or provided reasons that do not justify the result. A court application is unlikely to succeed merely because circumstances are sympathetic if the officer correctly concluded that a non-waivable policy condition was not met.
Federal Court filing deadlines can be very short and differ depending on whether the matter arose inside or outside Canada. Obtain advice immediately after receiving a refusal — do not wait while preparing another application.
What Applicants Should Do Before Applying
- Read the full public policy text — not a summary or social media post
- Create an eligibility chart listing every condition and the exact evidence proving it
- Separate public policy conditions from ordinary IRPA and regulatory requirements
- Identify which requirements the policy expressly exempts and which remain applicable
- Check dates, intake caps, signatures, forms, fees, and documentary rules
- Do not rely on H&C language as a backup for a known policy-eligibility gap
- Obtain legal advice where a condition is ambiguous or the evidence is unusual
- Keep a complete copy of the submitted application and proof of transmission
| Eligibility Question | Evidence to Review | Risk If Unanswered |
|---|---|---|
| Am I in the group described by the policy? | Nationality, status, age, residence, relationship, cohort records | Application may be outside the policy entirely |
| Did I meet all required dates? | Entry records, residence proof, work records, submission receipts | Officers generally cannot extend a policy date through H&C |
| Are all family members eligible and declared? | Civil status documents, custody records, dependency evidence | Family-member issues can affect processing and future sponsorship |
| Does the policy exempt the legal requirement I cannot meet? | Policy text cross-referenced with IRPA and Regulations | An unexempted statutory requirement may still cause refusal |
| Is the application complete on filing? | Forms, signatures, fees, translations, certified records | A second opportunity to provide proof may not be required |
What to Do After Receiving a Refusal
- Read the refusal letter and officer notes carefully
- Identify whether the refusal concerns a public policy condition, an IRPA requirement, admissibility, credibility, or document completeness
- Preserve the application package, correspondence, portal records, and proof of submission
- Check your current immigration status and any removal consequences
- Obtain advice promptly about Federal Court judicial review deadlines
- Assess whether the public policy remains open and whether the problem can actually be corrected
- Consider alternative pathways — including a separate H&C application only after confirming legal eligibility
- Avoid immediately resubmitting the same package without addressing the reason for refusal
Common Mistakes to Avoid
| Mistake | Why It Is Risky | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Assuming hardship cures every eligibility defect | The officer may lack authority to waive a public policy condition | Identify the legal source of each requirement before filing |
| Using a news summary instead of the policy text | Summaries may omit definitions, exclusions, dates, and evidence rules | Read the official policy and current operational instructions |
| Submitting weak relationship or status evidence | Eligibility may exist but remain unproven | Use primary records and explain gaps with corroborating evidence |
| Ignoring procedural fairness deadlines | The application may be decided on the existing record | Respond early, directly, and with organized proof |
| Treating a public policy refusal as an H&C refusal | The officer may not have assessed H&C merits at all | Determine whether a separate H&C application is available |
| Reapplying without checking intake status | Many public policies are time-limited or capped | Confirm that applications are still accepted and under which version |
Key Takeaways: IRCC’s July 22, 2026 guidance confirms that subsection 25(1) H&C discretion cannot waive conditions written into an in-Canada permanent residence-granting temporary public policy. Applicants must satisfy every policy condition. If they do not, the public policy application should be refused even where H&C circumstances are raised. Officers should identify the unmet requirement and explain that a separate H&C application is required for H&C assessment. The guidance does not end H&C relief — it clarifies that relief must be pursued through a legally appropriate separate application.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did IRCC change in July 2026?
IRCC published operational guidance on July 22, 2026 explaining how officers must handle H&C requests included in in-Canada permanent residence applications made under temporary public policies. The guidance states that officers cannot use subsection 25(1) of IRPA to waive a condition created by the public policy. If the applicant does not meet that condition, the officer should refuse the public policy application and explain that a separate H&C application is required for H&C assessment.
Does this mean Canada has cancelled H&C applications?
No. H&C applications remain part of Canadian immigration law. The guidance addresses the legal vehicle used to request relief. H&C may permit exemptions from eligible requirements of IRPA or the Regulations in an appropriate application, subject to statutory limits. It does not permit an officer to disregard a condition written into a temporary public policy by the Minister. H&C remains available — it must simply be pursued through the correct legal process.
Can H&C still be requested with a public policy application?
An applicant may raise H&C considerations, but those considerations cannot be used to overcome a missing condition of the public policy. They may still be relevant to an eligible requirement of IRPA or the Regulations, depending on the specific facts and legal analysis. Applicants should identify precisely which requirement they want exempted and the legal authority for that exemption before assuming H&C provides a solution.
What happens if I meet the public policy but fail another immigration requirement?
That situation requires separate analysis. The July guidance distinguishes public policy conditions from requirements of the Act and Regulations. If the missing requirement belongs to IRPA or the Regulations, subsection 25(1) may potentially be relevant, unless the Act restricts relief. The applicant must still meet every public policy condition and provide persuasive evidence supporting any requested exemption from the statutory requirement.
Will IRCC send a procedural fairness letter before refusing?
IRCC says procedural fairness should be followed in most cases where the officer is not satisfied that the applicant meets the public policy criteria. However, an additional opportunity may not be required where the public policy expressly requires the applicant to provide all supporting documentation needed for assessment. Applicants should therefore submit a complete evidentiary record at the outset rather than planning to supplement after concerns arise.
Can I challenge a refusal in Federal Court?
Possibly. Judicial review may be considered where the officer made a legal error, acted unfairly, misunderstood the policy, ignored material evidence, or reached an unreasonable decision. The Court does not simply substitute a more compassionate result and will not ordinarily rewrite a public policy. Federal Court filing deadlines are strict — seek advice immediately after receiving a refusal, not weeks later.
Can I submit a separate H&C application after refusal?
IRCC’s guidance says a person who wants H&C considerations assessed must reapply for permanent residence on H&C grounds and pay the applicable fees. This does not mean automatic eligibility or success. Eligibility, statutory bars, evidence requirements, current immigration status, removal consequences, and alternative pathways must all be reviewed before filing a separate H&C application.
Does this guidance apply to Express Entry or provincial nominee applications?
The guidance specifically addresses in-Canada permanent residence-granting temporary public policies. Express Entry and provincial nominee applications operate under different legal frameworks, although H&C issues can arise in immigration law more broadly. Applicants should not automatically transfer this rule to another program without reviewing the governing legislation, regulations, ministerial instructions, and program requirements applicable to their specific situation.
What if my representative told me H&C would fix a missing policy requirement?
Obtain a copy of the full application and any written advice, then seek an independent review. The correct analysis depends on whether the missing requirement belongs to the public policy or to IRPA and whether the applicant actually met the condition but failed to prove it. The July 2026 instruction makes clear that H&C cannot waive a policy condition — the distinction between a condition you failed to prove and a condition the officer must ignore is legally significant.
Is a temporary public policy permanent?
No. Temporary public policies are generally time-bound and may expire, be revoked, amended, capped, or replaced. Applications received before closure may continue to be processed under the policy, depending on its wording. Always confirm the current official version and intake status before filing or reapplying — relying on outdated policy language is a common and avoidable error.
Should I wait for a refusal before getting legal advice?
No. Early advice is often more valuable because it can identify whether a condition is actually met, what evidence is missing, whether another pathway is stronger, and whether the public policy is still open for applications. Once a refusal is issued, Federal Court deadlines, status issues, and removal consequences can create urgent time pressure that limits your options significantly.
What evidence should I include in a separate H&C application?
Evidence will depend on the specific circumstances but may include proof of establishment in Canada (employment, education, community involvement), family ties and the consequences of separation, the best interests of affected children, medical conditions or caregiving obligations, country conditions, and the full immigration history. The application should identify each exemption requested and connect the evidence to the legal test — general statements of sympathy without specific, organized evidence are not sufficient for a strong H&C application.
