When Rules Don’t Apply Equally: The Growing Crisis of Inconsistent IRCC Decisions
Share
Every year, thousands of individuals put their hopes and futures into the hands of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Whether applying for a study permit, permanent residence, or work authorization, applicants are expected to follow strict guidelines, provide supporting documents, and meet eligibility requirements. But what happens when IRCC doesn’t follow its own rules?
A concerning pattern has emerged: IRCC is increasingly issuing decisions that are inconsistent, opaque, and at times, outright unlawful. What’s worse is that, for most applicants, challenging these decisions at the Federal Court is simply out of reach—both financially and emotionally.
A System That Lacks Accountability
While IRCC officers are empowered to use discretion in assessing applications, this discretion must be reasonable and grounded in evidence. Yet we see daily examples where one officer approves an application with a certain set of facts, while another denies a nearly identical application citing vague or contradictory reasons. In some cases, decisions even directly contradict published IRCC policy or well-established case law.
Let’s be clear: inconsistency in discretionary decisions is not just frustrating—it can be a violation of administrative law. The principles of natural justice and procedural fairness demand that applicants receive clear, unbiased, and rational decisions. Anything less undermines public confidence in the entire immigration system.
The Hidden Decisions: Where Are the Officer’s Notes?
One of the most troubling aspects of the current process is the lack of transparency in refusal letters. Applicants often receive only a generic refusal without any clear explanation of how the officer reached their conclusion.
IRCC routinely withholds the officer’s notes—documents that explain the rationale behind a decision. These notes are not automatically provided with the refusal. Instead, applicants must submit a formal request under the Access to Information Act, a process many don’t even know exists. Even for those who are aware, it can take weeks or months to receive the notes—time that many applicants simply don’t have.
Providing officer’s notes alongside the refusal would not only increase transparency but also empower applicants to understand and improve their applications. It’s a basic yet critical step toward procedural fairness.
Why Do They Get Away With It?
There’s a simple reason why these issues persist: most applicants don’t have the time, money, or legal knowledge to fight back.
A judicial review at the Federal Court can cost thousands of dollars, take months to resolve, and often doesn’t result in a guaranteed remedy—only a chance to have the application re-assessed. For temporary residents with urgent timelines, or low-income applicants with limited support, challenging an unfair decision is practically impossible. As a result, many simply give up or reapply, entering an endless cycle of uncertainty and expense.
The Human Toll
Behind every unfair refusal is a human being—often someone who sold belongings, left family behind, or gave up a job for a better opportunity in Canada. Inconsistent decisions don’t just delay immigration goals; they derail lives. Students miss semesters. Families remain separated. Employers lose skilled workers. And applicants lose faith in a system that promised transparency and fairness.
What Needs to Change?
Stronger Internal Oversight: IRCC must implement meaningful internal audits of its decisions to identify patterns of inconsistency and correct them before they reach the courts.
Improved Training for Officers: Frontline decision-makers need regular, up-to-date training on case law, policy changes, and procedural fairness.
Attach Officer’s Notes with Decisions: Refusals should include a copy of the officer’s reasons—not just a template letter. Applicants deserve to know why their application was refused without having to file an access to information request.
Accessible Remedies: There should be low-cost, fast-track options for applicants to challenge decisions—especially in clear-cut cases of officer error or procedural unfairness.
Public Data and Transparency: IRCC should be required to publish anonymized decision data and refusal reasons, so applicants and practitioners can identify when the rules are not being applied evenly.
Conclusion
Canada’s immigration system is often held up as a model of fairness and efficiency—but the growing inconsistency in IRCC decisions tells a different story. Until there is more transparency, accountability, and access to justice, many deserving applicants will continue to fall through the cracks—often without recourse.
Providing officer’s notes with refusals and enforcing internal quality control are small but powerful changes that can restore trust in the system. It’s time for IRCC to not only hold applicants accountable to its rules, but to hold itself accountable as well.
If you have questions or concerns about an IRCC decision, or if you’re unsure about your options, don’t hesitate to contact us at info@immisight.com. We can refer you to an experienced lawyer.