Judicial Review in the context of Canadian immigration refers to the legal process by which a decision made by an immigration or refugee authority (such as the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), or the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)) can be reviewed by a higher court.

The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that government decisions in immigration matters are lawful, reasonable, and made according to proper procedures. It is not an appeal but a review of the decision-making process to determine if it was fair and followed the correct legal standards.

Key Aspects of Judicial Review

1. What Is Judicial Review?
   

   • Judicial review is the process by which individuals (such as immigrants, refugees, or applicants) can challenge decisions made by immigration authorities in court. It is a mechanism to ensure that the decisions made by immigration authorities are fair, reasonable, and comply with Canadian law.
   • It is usually sought when an individual believes that a decision made by an immigration officer, a decision-making body like the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), or another government agency was made improperly or unlawfully.

2. Judicial Review vs. Appeal
   

   • Judicial Review is not the same as an appeal. When an individual appeals a decision, they are asking for a higher authority to reconsider the facts or the decision itself.
   • Judicial Review, however, focuses on whether the decision was made legally and procedurally correct. The court does not reconsider the facts of the case or substitute its decision for the original one; it simply checks for errors in the process or law.

3. Grounds for Judicial Review
   

   • Errors of Law: If the decision-making body has made an error in interpreting or applying the law, the court may intervene. For example, if the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) misapplied the legal test for permanent residence, this could be grounds for judicial review.
   • Procedural Fairness: This refers to whether the decision was made in a manner that was fair and transparent. For example, if an applicant did not have a chance to present their case or if they were not given adequate notice of a hearing, this could be grounds for judicial review.
   • Unreasonableness: If the decision made by an immigration body is unreasonable (i.e., it is not supported by the evidence or it is inconsistent with other similar cases), the court may find it to be invalid.
   • Bias: If there is evidence that the decision-maker was biased, the decision could be overturned.
   • Factual Errors: While courts do not typically revisit the facts, they may do so in certain extreme circumstances if the factual findings are based on misinterpretations or errors of evidence.

4. When Can Judicial Review Be Requested?
   

   • Judicial review is usually requested after a decision has been made by an immigration or refugee body (like the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) or the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)).
   • Common decisions that may be subject to judicial review include:
     

     • Refugee status determination (e.g., a refugee claim being rejected by the RPD).
     • Sponsorship application refusals.
     • Denials of work or study permits.
     • Deportation orders.
     • Permanent residence refusals.

   • It can be filed if an individual believes that the decision was unlawful, unfair, or unreasonable, even if they cannot change the decision on appeal.

5. How to Request Judicial Review
   

   • To request judicial review, the individual must file an application for judicial review with the Federal Court of Canada.
   • The application must be filed within 15 days of receiving the decision from the immigration or refugee body (or within 60 days if the decision was sent outside Canada).
   • The individual must submit a written application outlining the grounds for judicial review and supporting documentation, along with a copy of the original decision.

6. What Happens After the Application Is Filed?
   

   • After the application for judicial review is submitted, the Federal Court will review the application to determine if the case meets the criteria for judicial review.
   • If the court agrees to hear the case, it will typically consider whether the decision in question was made fairly, lawfully, and in accordance with Canadian law.
   • If the court finds that the decision was made improperly, it may:
     

     • Set aside (invalidate) the decision.
     • Remit the matter back to the decision-making body (e.g., the IRB) for reconsideration.
     • Order a new hearing or decision-making process, or, in rare cases, make a new decision.

7. What Can the Court Do? The Federal Court does not have the authority to overturn a decision on the basis of facts. However, it can:
   

   • Quash the decision: The court can find the decision to be legally flawed and nullify it.
   • Remit the case back to the decision-making body: The court can send the case back for further consideration if the decision was flawed, with instructions to follow the proper legal process.
   • Order a new decision: In some cases, the court may direct a new decision-making process to be carried out according to proper legal standards.

8. What Happens After the Court’s Decision?
   

   • If the Federal Court rules in favor of the applicant, the immigration or refugee decision-maker may have to reconsider the case. Depending on the ruling, the individual may then have the chance to appeal the decision again or proceed with a new process.
   • If the court rules against the applicant, the original decision stands, and the individual must comply with the immigration decision (such as leaving the country if a removal order is upheld).

9. Important Considerations for Judicial Review
   

   • Timeliness: Judicial review must be requested within specific time limits (usually 15 days after receiving the decision in Canada or 60 days if outside Canada). If the deadline is missed, the application may be dismissed.
   • Costs: There may be legal fees involved in filing an application for judicial review, and the individual may need a lawyer to represent them.
   • Limited Grounds: Judicial review is not an opportunity to re-argue the facts of the case or present new evidence, but rather a review of the legal process.
   • Impact on Status: Even if judicial review is successful, the individual may face delays in resolving their immigration situation.

10. Immigration Decisions brought for JR:

• JUDICIAL REVIEW
• TRV (STUDENT, VISITOR, WORK PERMIT) REFUSALS
• PR APPLICATION REFUSED
• H&C APPLICATION 
• SPONSORSHIP APPLICATION 
• PRRA 
• STAY OF REMOVAL ORDER 
• REFUGEE CLAIM REFUSALS
• RESIDENCY OBLIGATION APPEAL 
• ADMISSIBILITY ISSUES 

11. How to File JR?

Judicial Review application is filed by Canadian Lawyers. Our Pannel lawyer Alam Law Professional Corporation represent all our client cases at Federal Court of Canada. For a FREE Assessment, please feel free to email your refusal @ Immigration@thealamlaw.com 

Conclusion

Judicial review is an important legal tool for individuals seeking to challenge immigration or refugee decisions in Canada. While it is not a process to reconsider the facts of the case, it provides a means to ensure that decisions are made fairly, in accordance with the law, and following proper legal procedures.

It allows individuals to request that a higher court review decisions made by immigration or refugee bodies, particularly when there are concerns about errors of law, procedural fairness, or unreasonableness.

If you believe a decision made by Canadian immigration authorities was unjust or unlawful, you may consider applying for judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada, but you must do so within the required time frame and meet specific legal criteria.