What is the case law on humanitarian and compassionate relief for children in the Middle East?

The panel considers in this type of assessment of the best interests of the children that the people with the most expertise as to what would be in their interests are, obviously, the parents of these children, especially parents who are involved in their children’s lives, as is the case for the male appellant and his wife. Also, the panel gives considerable weight to the fact that, according to the male appellant’s credible testimony, considering their profile and the instability in the region, it would be in the best interests of the children in this case, their young daughters, to be able to live in Canada. Of course, the health of one of them motivated her parents to stay in Lebanon, as a result of which the family was unable to establish themselves within the prescribed time frames. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, the panel finds that the male appellant and his wife made a decision that they believed at the time to be in the best interest of their daughter, whereas they now believe that it is in their best interest to live in Canada. The panel finds that this is an important factor in this matter. It also considers, objectively, that people with the profile of the two minor children in this case, young Christian girls in the Middle East, would have a better future in several respects in a county like Canada. The panel gives a great deal of weight to this factor, and notably to the recent case law,[4] which states, in paragraph 41 of Khanthasamy v. Canada, that children will rarely, if ever, be deserving of any hardship. Also in that paragraph, to summarize this thought, I quote: “Because children may experience greater hardship than adults faced with a comparable situation, circumstances which may not warrant humanitarian and compassionate relief when applied to an adult, may nonetheless entitle a child to relief.”