Immigration and Refugees Law
Reading Time
11 MINUTE READ
If IRCC refuses your visitor visa, study permit or work permit, you can usually challenge the decision by applying for leave and judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada. You must file within 15 days if the matter arose in Canada, or 60 days if it arose outside Canada. If you succeed, the usual result is a new decision by a different officer, not an automatic visa.
Last updated: October 28, 2026
A refusal letter can be discouraging, especially when the reasons are brief. This guide and the short explainer video below walk through how Federal Court judicial review works under federal law, what the judge looks at, common problems in refusal reasons, and the other options available.
Key takeaways
Video: Visa Refused in Canada? How Federal Court Judicial Review Works (7 minutes, Pax Law Corporation on YouTube). General information only, not legal advice.
When an IRCC officer refuses a temporary resident visa (visitor visa), study permit or work permit, there is usually no appeal to a tribunal. The way to challenge the refusal is an application for leave and judicial review in the Federal Court of Canada under section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Judicial review is not a new application and not a re-hearing of the facts. A judge examines whether the officer’s decision was reasonable and whether the process was fair. This is federal law, so it applies the same way across Canada, including British Columbia and Ontario.
The deadline is short. Under IRPA section 72(2)(b), the application must be filed and served within 15 days for a matter arising in Canada, or 60 days for a matter arising outside Canada, after the day you are notified of or otherwise become aware of the decision.
The clock starts when you learn of the refusal, not when you later receive the officer’s reasons (Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 899). A judge may extend time only for “special reasons” (IRPA s. 72(2)(c)). Courts consider whether you had a continuing intention to pursue the case, whether it has some merit, whether the government is prejudiced by the delay, and whether there is a reasonable explanation (Belmonté v. Longshoremen’s Union, 2004 FCA 141, para. 6). Our article on the 15-day and 60-day deadline explains this in more detail.
The judge first decides whether the case should go ahead. If you do not have the officer’s reasons, the Court’s Registry asks the decision-maker for them (Rule 9 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules). You then file a record with affidavits and written argument, generally within 30 days (Rules 10 and 11). The government may respond within 30 days, and you may reply within 10 days (Rule 13).
The judge decides leave on the written file (Rule 14). The Federal Court has described its settled practice as not giving reasons for leave decisions in immigration matters (Sankoh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 915, para. 1). There is no appeal from the leave decision (IRPA s. 72(2)(e)).
If leave is granted, the order sets the hearing date and further deadlines (Rule 15). The hearing is ordinarily set no sooner than 30 days and no later than 90 days after leave, unless the parties agree to an earlier date (IRPA s. 74(b)). The officer’s file, called the certified tribunal record, is generally produced after leave (Rule 17).
As a rule, no costs are awarded either way unless the Court finds special reasons (Rule 22). See costs in immigration judicial review.
Section 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act lists the grounds for review, including failing to observe procedural fairness, errors of law, and findings made without regard to the evidence.
Reasonableness. For the merits of an officer’s decision, the standard is reasonableness. The decision must show justification, transparency and intelligibility, and be justified in light of the facts and the law (Canada (MCI) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, para. 99). The court starts with the officer’s actual reasons, not its own view of the case (Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21, para. 79).
Procedural fairness. Fairness is assessed separately: the court asks whether a fair and just process was followed in all the circumstances (Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, para. 54).
The usual result is that the refusal is set aside and the application is sent back for a new decision, often by a different officer (Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1(3)). The court generally does not issue the visa or permit itself, and the new decision can still be a refusal.
Recent public Federal Court decisions in which Samin Mortazavi of Pax Law Corporation appeared for the applicants illustrate this pattern. In 2026 FC 255, 2025 FC 1998 and 2025 FC 1993, study permit refusals were set aside where the officer did not explain the reasoning or engage with evidence about the applicant’s plans, ties and employment prospects. In 2026 FC 95 and 2025 FC 1955, visitor visa refusals were set aside because the reasons did not engage with evidence of funds, travel history and family ties. In 2026 FC 142, the government conceded that a third visitor visa refusal was unreasonable, and the Court ordered a new decision by another officer. Each case turns on its own facts, and past results do not predict future outcomes. More decisions are listed on our court decisions page.
You can ask IRCC to reconsider. The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that decision-makers have discretion to reconsider in appropriate circumstances (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kurukkal, 2010 FCA 230, para. 3), but there is no right to reconsideration. You can also reapply with a stronger file.
Neither step is listed in IRPA section 72 as something that pauses the Federal Court deadline, so do not assume either one stops the clock. Choosing the right route depends on the refusal reasons and the evidence. See reconsideration request vs. judicial review.
The officer’s notes may come to light in the certified tribunal record, which is usually produced after leave is granted (Rule 17). Access to information and privacy requests are available to Canadian citizens and permanent residents (Access to Information Act, s. 4(1); Privacy Act, s. 12(1)). A foreign national outside Canada who is neither a citizen nor a permanent resident should not assume a direct right to make those requests.
Because of the short deadline, it is best to get advice as soon as you receive a refusal. A lawyer can review the reasons, assess whether there are arguable errors, and explain whether judicial review, reconsideration or a new application suits your situation. Pax Law Corporation’s immigration team can help you understand your options. You can also read about our leave and judicial review services.
Usually there is no appeal to a tribunal. The way to challenge the refusal is an application for leave and judicial review in the Federal Court under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
15 days for a matter arising in Canada and 60 days for a matter arising outside Canada, counted from the day you are notified of or otherwise become aware of the decision.
No. The Federal Court has held that time runs from when the applicant becomes aware of the refusal, not from when the reasons are later received (Chen, 2010 FC 899).
A judge may extend time for special reasons. The Court considers a continuing intention to pursue the case, some merit, no prejudice to the government and a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Leave is the first stage, where a judge decides on the written file whether the case should proceed to a hearing. Leave decisions are usually given without reasons and cannot be appealed.
Generally no. If the review succeeds, the usual result is that the refusal is set aside and the application is sent back for a new decision, often by a different officer. The new decision can still be a refusal.
Whether the decision was reasonable, meaning justified, transparent and intelligible in light of the facts and law, and whether the process was procedurally fair.
Do not assume so. Reconsideration is discretionary, and neither a reconsideration request nor a new application is listed in the Act as something that pauses the Federal Court deadline.
Yes, reapplying is an option, and sometimes it is the better one. The right choice depends on the refusal reasons and your evidence. Reapplying does not pause the deadline to challenge the earlier refusal.
As a rule, no costs are awarded to either side in these immigration proceedings unless the Court finds special reasons (Rule 22).
The officer’s file is usually produced in the certified tribunal record after leave is granted. Access to information and privacy requests are available to Canadian citizens and permanent residents.
Yes. Judicial review of IRCC decisions is governed by federal law and heard by the Federal Court, so the same rules apply across Canada.
If you have received a refusal and want to understand whether judicial review, reconsideration or a new application makes sense, Pax Law Corporation can review the decision with you. Consultations are available by booking through our website.
General information only, not legal advice. This article and video provide general information about Canadian federal immigration law as of the date shown. They are not legal advice, the law can change, and every situation is different. Reading or watching them does not create a lawyer–client relationship. For advice about your own situation, please book a consultation with a lawyer.
A plain-language guide to severance pay in British Columbia: the Employment Standards Act minimum, the separate right to common-law reasonable notice, when termination clauses fail, and how severance interacts with EI and income tax.
How British Columbia’s Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) enforces child and spousal support: what can be enrolled, enforcement tools, interest and fees, changing support, arrears and time limits.
A practical guide to shareholder agreements for British Columbia companies: how they interact with the Business Corporations Act and the articles, the clauses that matter most, how BC courts have treated shotgun clauses, and what happens when shareholders fall out.
Book a consultation with Pax Law Corporation and we will explain the options for your matter.
Book a consultationCall 604-767-9529This website provides general legal information only, not legal advice. Booking a consultation does not create a lawyer-client relationship until we confirm in writing. Outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
We use cookies to measure visits and improve this website. Choose whether to allow them.
0 Comments