JUDICIAL REVIEW
Received a visa refusal or unfair immigration decision?
Received a visa refusal or unfair immigration decision?
A Judicial Review (JR) is a legal process where the Federal Court of Canada reviews an immigration decision to determine whether it was reasonable, lawful, and procedurally fair.
The Federal Court of Canada reviews an immigration decision for errors of law or fact. It is not a re-application or new hearing, but challenges a decision that ignored or improperly assessed evidence, or reached a conclusion directly contradicted by the evidence provided.
A Writ of Mandamus is a Federal Court remedy that compels IRCC to make a decision on your immigration application when unreasonable delays occur through no fault of the applicant.
It ensures the decision-maker acts within a reasonable timeframe, but does not guarantee a positive outcome on your application.
Visitor Visa Refusals (TRV)
Work Permit Refusals
LMIA-Based Work Permit Refusals
Study Permit Refusals
Permanent Residence Application Refusals
Decision of Refugee Appeal Division
PRRA Refusals
Removal Orders
Procedural Fairness Letter Decisions
Strict timelines apply:
15 days from the date you receive the decision (if the decision-maker is located inside Canada).
60 days from the date you receive the decision (if the decision-maker is located outside Canada).
Missing the deadline may eliminate your right to challenge the decision.
Judicial Review proceedings in the Federal Court generally involve several stages.
1. Filing the Application
The process begins by filing an Application for Leave and Judicial Review within the applicable deadline.
2. Leave Stage
The Federal Court first decides whether to grant “leave”, which means permission for the case to proceed. Many cases are resolved at this stage.
3. Written Arguments
If leave is granted, both parties submit written legal arguments and supporting materials to the Court.
4. Federal Court Hearing
In some cases, the Court may schedule a hearing where legal counsel presents arguments before a Federal Court judge.
5. Court Decision
If the Court finds the decision unreasonable, it may set aside the decision and send the application back to a different immigration officer for reconsideration.
The Court does not substitute its own decision, but ensures that the original decision was made fairly and in accordance with the law.
If the Court finds the decision is unreasonable, it may set aside the decision and send the application back to a different officer for reconsideration.
The Court does not substitute its own decision, but ensures that the original decision was made fairly and in accordance with the law.
If the Court finds the decision is unreasonable, it may set aside the decision and send the application back to a different officer for reconsideration.
The Court does not substitute its own decision, but ensures that the original decision was made fairly and in accordance with the law.
Federal Court litigation requires careful legal analysis, strict compliance with deadlines, and strategic decision-making.
Our firm assists clients by:
• Reviewing refusal decisions and processing delays
• Assessing whether Judicial Review or Mandamus may be appropriate
• Preparing legal arguments and court submissions
• Representing clients through the Federal Court litigation process
Every case is carefully reviewed and strategically assessed to determine the most appropriate course of action.
Judicial Review and Mandamus applications allow the Federal Court to review immigration decisions or require the government to make a decision where there has been an unreasonable delay.
Because strict deadlines apply, it is important to assess your options promptly.
Book a consultation to review your case and determine the most appropriate legal strategy.