Internationally, human rights obligations pertaining to the protection of women from experiencing Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in addition to the eradication of IPV continues to be ignored and further violated by states. This has a unique impact on those experiencing IPV who also exist at the axes of inequality, including migrants. The interplay between migration and victims of IPV is nuanced. One which is largely mutually exclusive, where legal systems that seek to protect migrants or seek protect women facing gender-based violence may not account for the experience of those requiring protection in both realms. The consequences for victims with insecure or precarious immigration status (this includes those who may be undocumented, on a spouse sponsored Visa, refugee claimants, humanitarian and compassionate ground applicants, visitors and students) culminate in numerous uncertainties and barriers including access to securing safety, access to support services, housing, health care and other forms of social assistance. These barriers are all compounded by pressures from immigration and other legal systems, to which survivors may begin to fear removal, deportation or destitution, in many cases leaving the victim to make the decision to stay with their abuser, in order to avoid persecution. As the policing of migration continues to rise on an international level; status is continuing to supersede safety as women with precarious immigration status that are victims of IPV are excluded from many avenues of support. This paper comparatively explores the domestic policies in place for victims of IPV that have precarious or insecure immigration status, across two jurisdictions, the UK and Canada. This paper will also critically engage with the obligations that both states have under international human rights law, including a specific focus on The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (The Istanbul Convention).