{"id":2668,"date":"2026-11-14T15:41:41","date_gmt":"2026-11-14T15:41:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/humanitarian-compassionate-family-violence\/"},"modified":"2026-11-14T15:41:41","modified_gmt":"2026-11-14T15:41:41","slug":"humanitarian-compassionate-family-violence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/humanitarian-compassionate-family-violence\/","title":{"rendered":"Humanitarian and compassionate applications for survivors of family violence"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a>, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation \u00b7 Reviewed November 14, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2019, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Updated November 14, 2026: IRCC’s H&C family relationships instructions (modified June 11, 2026), IRCC’s options page (modified March 12, 2026) and Kang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)<\/em>, 2025 FC 473<\/a> checked that day.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The rule:<\/strong> abuse by a partner is a compassionate factor in itself, and an officer who accepts it must actually weigh it (Kang<\/em>, 2025 FC 473).<\/p>\n

Speed:<\/strong> IRCC fast-tracks the first-stage decision in urgent family violence cases, and officers should consider waiving the social assistance bar.<\/p>\n

Why a lawyer:<\/strong> I developed and argued Kang<\/em> in the Federal Court; how the abuse is presented decides how it is weighed. Why a lawyer<\/a><\/p>\n

Book a consultation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Safety first.<\/strong> In danger now? Call 9-1-1. VictimLinkBC, 24\/7 in many languages: 1-800-563-0808 (call or text). Shelters near you: sheltersafe.ca<\/a>. IRCC Client Support Centre: 1-888-242-2100 (choose the option for victims of abuse).<\/p>\n

If someone checks your phone or computer, use a private window and clear your history after reading. Quick exit<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Our immigration lawyers<\/p>\n

\"SundeepSundeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PrabhpreetPrabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PardeepPardeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
\nAbout our lawyers<\/summary>\n
\n

Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.<\/p>\n

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a><\/strong> focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.<\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n

For most survivors whose sponsorship ended because of abuse, the road to permanent residence is a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. IRCC treats these as a special group: it speeds up the first-stage decision in urgent cases, and its instructions tell officers to approach them sensitively and to consider an exemption if you are on social assistance. The Federal Court has also made clear that accepting the abuse isn’t enough: the officer has to weigh it.<\/p>\n

Lawgical Law Corporation<\/a>, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, prepares H&C applications for survivors of family violence and challenges H&C refusals in the Federal Court; this guide is by Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha.<\/p>\n

The Kang case: family violence as a compassionate factor<\/h2>\n

In Kang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)<\/em>, 2025 FC 473<\/a>, a young woman came to Canada at 18, married, and suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse, isolation and financial control. She left with her passport and a bag of clothes, and her husband withdrew his sponsorship. The H&C officer accepted the family violence but refused the application, praising her “resilience and ‘bounce back’ from the adversity”.<\/p>\n

The Federal Court set the refusal aside. Justice Little held that intimate partner violence “is a compassionate factor in itself in an H&C application” (para 42), and that:<\/p>\n

\n

“Having accepted that the applicant suffered from intimate partner abuse, the officer had to consider the facts and events that occurred, and their effects on the applicant, and address that central question.”<\/p>\n

Kang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)<\/em>, 2025 FC 473<\/a>, at para 45<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Court added that the officer had to show they understood the full nature of the abuse, including control, isolation and financial dependence, which were in her own statements but missing from the reasons (para 46). I developed and argued the case for the applicant. It is now the case we cite when an officer accepts abuse but doesn’t weigh it.<\/p>\n

H&C family violence: the fast-tracked decision<\/h2>\n

IRCC speeds up the eligibility (first-stage) decision if you are experiencing family violence in Canada by a spouse or common-law partner and depend on that partner for your status. Say so clearly at the top of the application and in the cover letter. A first-stage approval also gives you a stay of removal while the rest is processed.<\/p>\n

On social assistance after leaving: the section 39 waiver<\/h2>\n

Being on social assistance can normally make an applicant inadmissible under section 39. IRCC’s June 11, 2026 instructions tell officers that survivors often can’t support themselves right away (housing, child care, isolation, trauma, no child support) and that they should consider exempting them, even on their own initiative. Ask for the exemption anyway, and show your plan to become self-supporting.<\/p>\n

What officers weigh in a family violence H&C<\/h2>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Factors in a family violence H&C application<\/caption>\n
Factor<\/th>\nWhat to show<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
The abuse itself<\/td>\nWhat happened, for how long, and its effects on you (Kang)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lost sponsorship<\/td>\nThat leaving cost you the PR you were on track for<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hardship if you leave Canada<\/td>\nStigma for a separated or divorced woman, family rejection, no home or support to return to, risk from the abuser’s family<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Establishment<\/td>\nWork, study, counselling, volunteering, friends and community support built since leaving<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Children<\/td>\nThe best interests of any child directly affected<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

No police or medical records?<\/h2>\n

Many survivors never reported to police or saw a doctor, especially where the abuse was emotional, controlling or financial. There is no rule that an H&C needs those records. What officers look for is a detailed, candid statement from you, backed by whatever you have: letters from people you confided in, messages, counselling records, shelter letters. I have seen refusals give the abuse only “some weight” because the applicant’s own account was missing or because there were no police or medical records. Your statement is the centre of the file.<\/p>\n

From the family violence TRP to PR<\/h2>\n

Many clients file the H&C while on a family violence TRP. The TRP gives you status and a work permit while the H&C is decided: see the family violence TRP<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Why a family violence H&C needs a lawyer<\/h2>\n

One lawyer, one file, every step:<\/strong><\/p>\n