By Dr. Hamidreza Siavashpour, Canadian Immigration and Refugee Lawyer
One recent client case stood out as both interesting and educational, and I decided to share it with you.
In this case, a family of three from Iran applied twice in 2024 for visitor visas to visit family members in Canada. Unfortunately, both applications were refused. After their second refusal, they approached us to help challenge the refusal at the Federal Court of Canada.
For those who might not be familiar with the process of challenging an officer’s decision in the Federal Court, you may find the following Procedural Roadmap helpful:
Identifying the Mistake
After filing the Application for Leave and Judicial Review (AFLJR)–Step 1 in the Procedural Roadmap–and reviewing the Rule 9 Reasons (Step 5), we identified a clear and undeniable error by the visa officer in making the decision.
The officer mistakenly classified the Principal Applicant (PA) as an accompanying family member and refused his application based on a mistaken assumption that he was accompanying someone whose application had been refused.
For context, when multiple applicants apply for visas or permits as part of one submission, the officer assesses the principal applicant’s eligibility and admissibility first. If their application is approved, the officer proceeds to assess the accompanying family members’ applications. Conversely, if the principal applicant is refused, the accompanying applications are typically refused without further assessment.
That is why when a family is applying to come to Canada, the supporting documents are mostly uploaded under the principal applicant’s section of the application.
Resolution Through Early Settlement
We filed the AFJR promptly, and simultaneously, we submitted a detailed early resolution request to the Department of Justice (DOJ), highlighting the officer’s clear error.
Fortunately, the DOJ accepted our argument and early resolution request even before we submitted the Applicant’s Record (Step 6). For those unfamiliar with this process, a settlement or even a favourable decision by the Court often results in reopening the client’s file for redetermination by another IRCC officer rather than outright approval.
Redetermination Process
When the new officer reviewed our clients’ applications, they requested updated or additional documents within a 10-day timeframe. This short window was insufficient for our clients to gather the necessary documents, and we identified areas in the original application that could be improved (as we were not their legal representatives during the initial submission).
In response to that request, we only submitted an extension request without any supporting documents for the applications. Interestingly, that extension request resulted in the officer approving all three applications without requiring any new or updated documents.
In other words, the strength of our early resolution request turned a case with two prior refusals and less-than-ideal initial applications into successful outcomes for all three applicants.
Key Takeaways
- Identify Clear Errors: When there are obvious and undeniable mistakes in an officer’s decision, a strategic early resolution request to the DOJ can save significant time, effort, and expense for both the applicant and the government.
- Realistic Early Resolution Requests: Not all cases are suitable for early resolution. Unrealistic requests or weak arguments are unlikely to succeed, especially given the DOJ’s heavy caseload.
- Preparation is Key: When requesting early resolution, ensure your submission is well-prepared and supported by evidence. A strong but clear and concise request significantly increases the likelihood of a favourable settlement.
