When it comes to Authorization to Return to Canada (ARC) applications, one of the most important things for practitioners to remember is that there are no legislated criteria guiding decision-makers. Instead, officers have broad discretion, and the outcome of an ARC request will depend heavily on the principles developed through case law.

What Officers Consider

• Compelling Reasons: Since there are no fixed criteria, the question often becomes whether the applicant has compelling reasons to return to Canada.
• Risk Assessment: Officers weigh the purpose of travel against Canada’s broader social, humanitarian, and economic commitments, while ensuring that the health and security of Canadians are protected.
• Immigration History: Past compliance is highly relevant. If a client has a history of contraventions, officers will consider whether another violation is likely and whether the applicant has demonstrated remorse or taken responsibility.
• Severity of the Offence: The seriousness of the past contravention will directly influence how strictly the application is scrutinized.

Why This Matters for Practitioners

Because there are no statutory guidelines, advocacy plays a critical role. Practitioners must build persuasive arguments grounded in case law, demonstrate risk mitigation, and present the client’s history and circumstances in a way that highlights responsibility and rehabilitation.

This insight comes from LPEN’s recent ARC course with Victor Ing, where participants explored how to effectively prepare clients for this highly discretionary process.

👉 Missed the session? You can still access it here: https://lpen.ca/authorization-to-return-to-canada/