Arshdeep Singh kahlon

A judicial review is a legal process where the Federal Court of Canada assesses whether an immigration officer, tribunal, or board decision was fair and reasonable. Unlike an appeal, a judicial review does not reconsider your entire application or introduce new evidence - it strictly examines whether the decision-making process was flawed. If successful, the Federal Court of Canada will set aside the refusal and order that a different officer or panel re-evaluate your application.

What kind of immigration decisions are eligible for judicial review?

Study Permit Refusals
Work Permit Refusals
Visitor Visa Denials
Permanent Residence Rejections
Refugee Claims and Appeals (RAD Decisions)
CBSA Detention or Removal Orders
Sponsorship Refusals (Inland Spousal Sponsorships)
Visa Cancellations
Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) Decisions
Immigration Division (ID) Decisions
Other Final IRCC and CBSA Decisions

Was your immigration application refused?

If your application for a visa, work permit, study permit, permanent residence, refugee claim, or inland spousal sponsorship has been denied by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), or in case the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Immigration Division (ID), the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), or the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), have rendered negative decision in your matter, you may have the right to challenge the decision through a judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada.

Is there any deadline to file a judicial review?

Time is of the essence when seeking judicial review:

15 days if the decision was made inside Canada.
60 days if the decision was made outside Canada.

Failing to file within these deadlines may eliminate your ability to challenge the decision.

What are the steps involved in the judicial review process?

Step 1: Filing an Application for Leave:

You must first obtain leave (permission) from the Federal Court to proceed with judicial review.
This involves filing an Application for Leave and Judicial Review and serving it to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
You will need to submit an Applicant’s Record outlining the legal errors made by the officer or tribunal.

Step 2: Accessing Reasons for Refusal:

If your refusal letter lacks detailed reasoning, the Court may request IRCC’s internal case notes under Rule 9 to understand the decision-maker’s thought process.

Step 3: Submitting Legal Arguments:

You must prepare a Memorandum of Argument, citing relevant case law and legal principles to demonstrate the flaws in the decision.
The DOJ will respond with its own legal position, and you will have the opportunity to reply.

Step 4: Decision on Leave:

A judge will decide whether to grant leave based on the written arguments.
If leave is granted, the case proceeds to a full judicial review hearing.

Step 5: The Judicial Review Hearing:

If leave is granted, an oral hearing is held before a Federal Court judge.
The judge will assess whether the immigration officer’s or tribunal’s decision contained reviewable errors in fact, law, or procedure.
No new evidence is introduced; the review is strictly based on the record before the original decision-maker.

Step 6: The Federal Court Decision:

The Court may take one to six months to issue a ruling.
If successful, the refusal is set aside, and your application is sent for reconsideration to a different officer or tribunal.
A successful judicial review does not guarantee approval, but it provides another opportunity for a fair assessment.

What is the legal test involved in judicial review matters?

When a court reviews an immigration refusal, it does not simply decide whether it agrees or disagrees with the decision. Instead, it applies a legal test called the reasonableness standard to determine whether the decision was fair, logical, and properly justified.

What does the reasonableness standard mean?

A reasonable decision is one that:

Makes sense based on the facts – The immigration officer must consider all relevant evidence before making a decision. Ignoring key facts or misinterpreting them can make a decision unreasonable.
Follows the correct legal rules – Decisions must be based on Canadian immigration laws and policies, such as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. If an officer applies the wrong law or misinterprets it, the decision may be unreasonable.
Is explained clearly – The officer must provide reasons that show how and why the decision was made. If the explanation is unclear, inconsistent, or missing important details, it could be considered unreasonable.

How does the court apply the reasonableness standard?

When a court reviews an immigration decision, it does not replace the officer’s judgment with its own. Instead, it asks:

Did the officer's decision have a logical basis?
Was the decision made after properly considering all relevant laws and facts?
Was the explanation clear and understandable?

If the answer to these questions is yes, the court will uphold the decision, even if it believes another decision could have been better. But if the answer is no, the court may find the decision unreasonable and order it to be reconsidered.

What impact did the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov have on the legal test for reasonableness?

The Supreme Court of Canada clarified this standard in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. The ruling emphasized that immigration decisions must meet these key requirements:

Logically Sound – The reasoning must make sense, be internally consistent, and avoid errors like making assumptions without evidence.
Based on a Clear Analysis of the Facts – The officer must consider all relevant evidence. Ignoring important facts or misinterpreting them can result in the decision being overturned.
Justified Under Canadian Law – Decisions must follow immigration laws and policies. Officers cannot make arbitrary rulings; they must justify their decisions using the correct legal framework.

The Vavilov decision stresses that immigration officers must explain their decisions in a way that is clear, transparent, and easy to understand - not just for courts but also for the people affected. The goal is to ensure decisions are fair, rational, and legally sound.

Example to Illustrate the Reasonableness Standard:

Imagine you apply for a work permit, and the immigration officer refuses it, saying you do not have enough job experience. However, you submitted official letters proving your work history. If the officer ignores these letters and does not explain why, the decision might be unreasonable because it fails to consider important evidence.

On the other hand, if the officer reviews your documents, considers relevant laws, and provides a logical explanation for refusal, the decision is likely reasonable, even if you disagree with it.

Why Does This Standard Matter?

The reasonableness standard ensures that immigration decisions are not arbitrary or unfair. It protects applicants by requiring officers to make well-reasoned, fair decisions that follow the law. However, it also gives officers some flexibility, as long as their decisions are properly justified.

If an immigration decision appears flawed - meaning it lacks proper reasoning, ignores key evidence, or misapplies the law - judicial review may be an option to challenge it. The court may then determine whether the decision should be reconsidered.

What are the alternatives to judicial review?

Judicial review is a powerful legal remedy, but it is not always the best option. Other potential strategies include:

Requesting Reconsideration – If new evidence or procedural errors exist, you may ask IRCC or the tribunal to reassess your application.
Reapplying – If circumstances have changed, submitting a new application may be more effective.
Appealing (If Available) – Certain immigration refusals, such as sponsorship applications, can be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).

Why choose Kahlon Law Office to represent your case in the Federal Court of Canada?

At Kahlon Law Office, we understand the complexities of immigration litigation and have extensive experience representing clients in judicial reviews before the Federal Court of Canada. Whether your case involves a work permit refusal, visa denial, permanent residence rejection, CBSA removal order, or a negative tribunal decision, we provide strategic legal representation to challenge unfair decisions.

Judicial Review

What kind of immigration decisions are eligible for judicial review?

Was your immigration application refused?

Is there any deadline to file a judicial review?

What are the steps involved in the judicial review process?

What is the legal test involved in judicial review matters?

What are the alternatives to judicial review?

Why choose Kahlon Law Office to represent your case in the Federal Court of Canada?

Our Services

DISCLAIMER

Menu

Contact Info

Follow Us

Services