There is no general amnesty or regularization program in Canada for people who have lived here for years without status. The main route to permanent residence is a permanent residence application that asks for humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) relief under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Depending on the file, a temporary resident permit (TRP), a deferral request, or a stay motion in Federal Court may run alongside it or come first. All of these are discretionary. None is automatic, and each carries its own bars and deadlines.
Key Takeaways
- Canada has no standing regularization program. Relief for long-term undocumented residents is discretionary and assessed case by case.
- For a foreign national inside Canada, the Minister must consider H&C circumstances under IRPA s. 25(1). For someone outside Canada, the Minister may consider them.
- Several statutory bars can shut the door before the merits are ever reached, including a pending refugee claim, a pending H&C, and the 12-month bar after a claim is abandoned, rejected, or withdrawn.
- Stage 1 approval in principle is significant on its own: it triggers a stay of removal and opens the door to a work permit, a study permit, and provincial health coverage.
- Planned H&C admission spaces have been cut sharply across successive levels plans, so timing and evidence quality matter more than they used to.
Is there an amnesty for undocumented residents in Canada?
No. Proposals for a broad regularization program have been discussed publicly for years, but as of 2026 nothing of that kind is in force. What exists is individual, discretionary relief.
The wider environment also matters. Since 2025 the federal government has been reducing planned admissions in both the temporary and permanent resident streams, and the humanitarian category has been reduced along with everything else. Successive levels plans moved the planned intake for H&C and related public policy admissions from roughly ten thousand for 2025 down to figures in the low thousands, and then to roughly one thousand per year in the plan covering 2026 to 2028. Those are planning targets rather than quotas applied to individual files, and they change with each plan, so confirm the current IRCC levels plan before drawing conclusions from any number. The practical point for applicants is that the legal test has not changed but the room at the top has narrowed.
Who can apply, and who is barred
Section 25(1) allows a foreign national to ask for an exemption from the ordinary requirements of the Act and for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, taking into account the best interests of any child directly affected.
Some people cannot use s. 25 at all:
- A person found inadmissible on security grounds, for human or international rights violations, or for organized criminality (IRPA ss. 34, 35, 35.1 and 37).
- A person who already has an H&C application pending (s. 25(1.2)(a)).
- A person with a refugee claim pending before the Refugee Protection Division or the Refugee Appeal Division (s. 25(1.2)(b)).
- A person whose claim was found ineligible for referral to the Board and who has a pre-removal risk assessment pending (s. 25(1.2)(b.1)). This provision has become far more important since the 2026 amendments moved a large group of claimants out of the Board and into the PRRA stream. If that is your situation, the sequence in which you file matters, and it is discussed in our note on responding to a Bill C-12 eligibility fairness letter.
Others face a temporary bar rather than a permanent one. A designated foreign national who arrived as part of an irregular arrival must generally wait five years. Anyone whose refugee claim was abandoned, rejected, or withdrawn within the last twelve months is barred for that period, unless the claim was withdrawn before the Board hearing began, or unless one of two exceptions applies: an adverse effect on the best interests of a child under 18, or a risk to life because the country of nationality or former habitual residence cannot provide adequate health or medical care.
What an officer can and cannot weigh
An officer can consider hardship on return, establishment in Canada, and the best interests of affected children. Discrimination or violence in the home country, inability to obtain necessary medical care or work there, and the applicant’s circumstances compared with others in that country are all in scope. An officer may also grant relief from certain inadmissibilities, including criminality under s. 36, health grounds under s. 38, and misrepresentation under s. 40, and may consider eligibility in the family class.
An officer cannot re-decide refugee risk. Factors that go to persecution under s. 96 or to risk of torture, death, or cruel and unusual treatment under s. 97(1) are excluded from the H&C analysis, although the underlying facts and their human consequences can still be described as hardship. That distinction comes from Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para 75, and getting it wrong is one of the more common drafting errors.
It is also worth remembering that IRCC manuals, program delivery instructions, and operational bulletins are not law and do not bind the decision maker, and that an officer who treats them as mandatory has fettered their discretion (Lee v. Canada (MCI), 2008 FC 1152 at para 29).
The legal test in one paragraph
Kanthasamy remains the governing authority. Words like “unusual and undeserved” or “disproportionate” hardship are instructive but not determinative. The assessment must be holistic and equitable, and the real question is whether, having regard to all of the circumstances, a decent and fair-minded person would find it simply unacceptable to deny the relief sought. H&C is an exceptional remedy rather than an alternative immigration stream, and the applicant carries the onus. For a fuller treatment of the test and the evidence that supports it, see our humanitarian and compassionate application guide.
Two practical consequences follow. First, submissions by counsel are argument, not evidence, and an applicant’s own unsupported assertions can be treated as self-serving. Every H&C should include a sworn statement from the applicant, whose contents are presumed true unless there is a valid reason to doubt them (Maldonado v. MEI, [1979] F.C.J. No. 248 (C.A.)). Second, generalized hardship that anyone in that country would feel is not enough. The evidence must be personal and case specific (Adair v. Canada (MCI), 2020 FC 999 at para 14), and an officer is under no duty to prompt an applicant for better evidence (Gutierrez v. Canada (MCI), 2021 FC 1111 at para 32).
What approval actually gives you: Stage 1 and Stage 2
In-Canada H&C files are decided in two stages, and applicants often misunderstand the first one.
Stage 1, approval in principle, means you are allowed to apply for permanent residence from within Canada for H&C reasons. It exempts you from the in-Canada eligibility criteria so the inland application can proceed. It also puts a stay of removal in place under IRPR s. 233 and opens eligibility for a work permit under IRPR s. 207(d), a study permit under IRPR s. 215(g), and provincial health coverage. For many long-term undocumented residents, this is the moment life becomes livable again, even though permanent residence has not yet been granted.
Stage 2 confirms that admissibility requirements not covered by an exemption have been met. The right of permanent residence fee is paid and the landing process is completed at this stage. Family members abroad are generally not processed at the same time, so plan for a sponsorship after landing rather than assuming concurrent processing.
Options other than H&C
A temporary resident permit under IRPA s. 24(1) does not lead directly to permanent residence, but it grants lawful status where a person is otherwise inadmissible or non-compliant. A permit issued for six months or more opens work permit eligibility, and a person who has held one permit successfully is generally in a stronger position on renewal. Our TRP page sets out the framework.
A refugee claim remains available to some people, but the 2026 amendments changed the calculus significantly. A person who entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and claims more than a year after that first entry will generally not be referred to the Board at all. Anyone considering a claim after years without status needs to check entry dates before filing.
Deferral requests and stay motions are the emergency tools. Where removal is scheduled, a request to defer goes to the CBSA officer, and a stay motion goes to the Federal Court alongside an underlying application for leave and judicial review. The test on a judicial stay includes irreparable harm and the balance of convenience, and the threshold is demanding. See our stay of removal page for how those motions are built.
One recurring scenario deserves a note. Where removal to a country is administratively deferred or suspended, an applicant may be told to leave Canada to apply for permanent residence from a place Canada itself will not remove people to. The Federal Court has criticized that reasoning, observing that a policy designed to respond to a humanitarian crisis should not become the ground for denying humanitarian relief (Al-Abayechi v. Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 873 at paras 13 to 15, citing Bawazir v. Canada (MCI), 2019 FC 623 at para 17). If that is your situation, say so explicitly in the submissions.
If the application is refused
Three routes exist, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Reconsideration. A request can be made on the basis of new evidence or an error in the original assessment. The decision maker has discretion to reconsider, since functus officio is not an automatic bar (Clarke v. Canada (MCI), 2017 FC 393 at paras 11 to 12), but that discretion is generally exercised only where exceptional circumstances are shown (Pierre Paul v. Canada (CI), 2018 FC 523 at para 38).
Reapplication. There is no bar on filing again, but a second application with the same record will usually meet the same result. New evidence is the point.
Judicial review. There is no appeal from an H&C refusal, only judicial review in Federal Court. For a matter arising inside Canada the application for leave and judicial review must be served and filed within 15 days of receiving the decision, and within 60 days for a matter arising outside Canada. A reconsideration request does not extend that clock. Confirm the deadline that applies to your specific decision as soon as you receive it.
Frequently asked questions
Can I be removed while my H&C application is pending?
Yes. Filing an H&C does not by itself stop removal. Only a Stage 1 approval creates a statutory stay under IRPR s. 233. If removal is scheduled while the application is pending, a deferral request or a stay motion is the tool, not the H&C itself.
Can I work while my H&C is being processed?
Not on the strength of the application alone. Work permit eligibility under IRPR s. 207(d) follows Stage 1 approval. Some applicants hold status on another basis in the meantime, and a TRP is sometimes used to bridge the gap.
Does living in Canada for a long time guarantee approval?
No. Length of residence is one element of establishment, and long residence supported by thin evidence has been found to amount to only modest establishment. What persuades is documented work, community ties, family relationships, and the concrete consequences of removal, not the passage of time on its own.
Will an officer consider the danger I would face back home?
Not as refugee risk. Section 96 and s. 97(1) factors are excluded from the H&C analysis. The same underlying facts can and should be presented as hardship, discrimination, or lack of access to care.
How long does an H&C application take?
Processing has been running very long, and practitioners have reported timelines measured in years. Check the current IRCC processing time posting for your application type rather than relying on any figure quoted in an article.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Immigration law and IRCC/ESDC policy change frequently, and every case turns on its own facts. Reading this article does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Obtain advice tailored to your situation before you act.
Talk to a Canadian immigration lawyer. BridgePoint Law advises individuals and businesses across Canada — and on Canada–US–China cross-border matters — on options for people who are out of status in Canada. Book a consultation with our team in Toronto and Kingston. We work in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.