Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
Immigration & IRCCCanada
IRCC Reconsideration Request Letter (Canada)
If Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has refused your visa, study permit, work permit, permanent residence or spousal sponsorship application, a reconsideration request is the proportionate first step before judicial review. Our Canadian template produces the letter the deciding officer reads — a decision-type-aware ground framework, a paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of the officer’s GCMS decision notes (the ones IRCC has been attaching directly to many temporary-resident refusals since 29 July 2025), a numbered evidence schedule that separates documents already on file from new evidence, and the parallel Federal Court clock under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Reconsideration Request — IRCC
Reconsideration Of A Visitor Refusal · June 12, 2026
Priya R. Khanna
14B Royal Palms, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 053, India
+91 98201 55512
priya.khanna@email.in
June 12, 2026
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Visitor Visa Processing Office, New Delhi
Visitor Visa Processing Office, New Delhi
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST — IRCC
UCI: 1234-5678 · Application: V202612345678 · Refusal dated May 28, 2026
Dear Officer,
I respectfully request a reconsideration of the refusal dated May 28, 2026 of my application for a visitor visa or visitor record. This letter sets out the grounds and the evidence I rely on. I understand that reconsideration is a discretionary remedy — the visa officer is not functus officio (Canada (MCI) v Kurukkal, 2010 FCA 230) — and that it does not pause any judicial review clock that may apply under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
I respectfully request a reconsideration of the refusal dated May 28, 2026 of my application for a visitor visa or visitor record. This letter sets out the grounds and the evidence I rely on. I understand that reconsideration is a discretionary remedy — the visa officer is not functus officio (Canada (MCI) v Kurukkal, 2010 FCA 230) — and that it does not pause any judicial review clock that may apply under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
1.
APPLICANT DETAILS
Full name: Priya R. Khanna
UCI: 1234-5678
Application number: V202612345678
Address: 14B Royal Palms, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 053, India
Telephone: +91 98201 55512
Email: priya.khanna@email.in
UCI: 1234-5678
Application number: V202612345678
Address: 14B Royal Palms, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 053, India
Telephone: +91 98201 55512
Email: priya.khanna@email.in
2.
THE REFUSAL UNDER RECONSIDERATION
Application stream: visitor visa or visitor record
Date of the refusal letter: May 28, 2026
Reference on the refusal letter: IRCC-2026-NDL-118427
The refusal letter, the application package as filed, and (where available) the officer’s decision notes are read together with this request.
Date of the refusal letter: May 28, 2026
Reference on the refusal letter: IRCC-2026-NDL-118427
The refusal letter, the application package as filed, and (where available) the officer’s decision notes are read together with this request.
3.
NATURE OF A RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
A reconsideration request is not a statutory right. The Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (MCI) v Kurukkal, 2010 FCA 230 confirmed that the doctrine of functus officio does not bar a visa officer from reopening a decision, and the officer retains a residual discretion to do so. A request will commonly succeed where evidence was overlooked, was misread, was unavailable at the time of decision, or where a technical error affected the outcome. This letter is framed on that footing.
4.
OUTCOME SOUGHT
I respectfully ask the officer to reopen the file and assess the application together with the additional evidence enclosed. If reconsideration is refused, I ask that the refusal be explained in writing with brief reasons so the next step — whether further evidence, a fresh application, or judicial review under section 72 — can be chosen with the file fully understood.
5.
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
The officer concluded that my ties to India were insufficient and treated my bank balance as transient. The decision notes attached to the refusal show that two fixed deposits and the employer’s sanctioned leave letter were not weighed. Those documents were filed with the application and are scheduled below; a current employment confirmation has also been added.
6.
OFFICER DECISION NOTES — REBUTTAL AND DETAILED GROUNDS
The refusal letter itself includes the officer’s decision notes, which IRCC has been attaching directly to many temporary-resident refusals since 29 July 2025. The reconsideration responds to those notes paragraph by paragraph.
The decision misreads or mischaracterizes the evidence on file. The grounds below set out, point by point, what the document or statement actually says, what the officer appears to have understood it to say, and the corrected reading the record supports. Goel v Canada (MCI), 2025 FC 275 confirmed that a refusal to engage meaningfully with an applicant’s correction of a misread document can itself be unreasonable. I ask the officer to reconsider on the evidence as it actually stands.
The correct position: On the evidence as it actually stands, my ties to India are strong (employment of 7 years, primary residence in Mumbai, two non-redeemable fixed deposits, dependants), my purpose of visit is concrete (a 17-day family visit anchored to a wedding), and my financial capacity is more than sufficient for the trip planned.
Grounds in detail: The bank balance of INR 8.1 lakh in the current account is the operating account, but it is not the totality of available funds: FD-A and FD-B together total INR 30.5 lakh and were both filed in the application package as items 14-15 of the supporting documents. The employer’s sanctioned leave letter (item 7) confirms paid leave from 14 to 30 June and a return-to-work date of 1 July 2026. The flight booking is a round-trip with a confirmed return on 30 June. Read together with the property records (items 18-19) and the dependants’ documents (items 9-12), the refusal’s ties and finance findings cannot stand.
Response to the notes: The notes record concerns under two headings: "ties to country of residence" and "purpose of visit". On ties, the notes do not mention the two long-standing fixed deposits (FD-A INR 18.5 lakh, FD-B INR 12 lakh) or the sanctioned leave letter dated 4 May 2026; both were filed in the IMM 5257 supporting documents bundle. On purpose, the notes treat my brother’s wedding as a stand-alone reason; in fact the application explained that the wedding is the trigger for a 17-day family visit, with travel itinerary, hotel bookings and a return-trip ticket already issued.
The decision misreads or mischaracterizes the evidence on file. The grounds below set out, point by point, what the document or statement actually says, what the officer appears to have understood it to say, and the corrected reading the record supports. Goel v Canada (MCI), 2025 FC 275 confirmed that a refusal to engage meaningfully with an applicant’s correction of a misread document can itself be unreasonable. I ask the officer to reconsider on the evidence as it actually stands.
The correct position: On the evidence as it actually stands, my ties to India are strong (employment of 7 years, primary residence in Mumbai, two non-redeemable fixed deposits, dependants), my purpose of visit is concrete (a 17-day family visit anchored to a wedding), and my financial capacity is more than sufficient for the trip planned.
Grounds in detail: The bank balance of INR 8.1 lakh in the current account is the operating account, but it is not the totality of available funds: FD-A and FD-B together total INR 30.5 lakh and were both filed in the application package as items 14-15 of the supporting documents. The employer’s sanctioned leave letter (item 7) confirms paid leave from 14 to 30 June and a return-to-work date of 1 July 2026. The flight booking is a round-trip with a confirmed return on 30 June. Read together with the property records (items 18-19) and the dependants’ documents (items 9-12), the refusal’s ties and finance findings cannot stand.
Response to the notes: The notes record concerns under two headings: "ties to country of residence" and "purpose of visit". On ties, the notes do not mention the two long-standing fixed deposits (FD-A INR 18.5 lakh, FD-B INR 12 lakh) or the sanctioned leave letter dated 4 May 2026; both were filed in the IMM 5257 supporting documents bundle. On purpose, the notes treat my brother’s wedding as a stand-alone reason; in fact the application explained that the wedding is the trigger for a 17-day family visit, with travel itinerary, hotel bookings and a return-trip ticket already issued.
7.
EVIDENCE SCHEDULE
The following records are enclosed or referenced. Each item is identified so the officer can weigh it against the corresponding concern raised in the refusal:
1. FD-A receipt and balance certificate, ICICI Bank, account ****-4421 (dated April 22, 2026) — INR 18,50,000 fixed deposit, non-redeemable until October 2027 — stable funds not reflected in the notes (on file with application)
2. FD-B receipt and balance certificate, HDFC Bank, account ****-9018 (dated February 14, 2026) — INR 12,00,000 fixed deposit, non-redeemable until May 2028 (on file with application)
3. Employer sanctioned-leave letter on company letterhead (dated May 4, 2026) — Paid leave 14–30 June 2026, return-to-work 1 July 2026 (on file with application)
4. Updated employment confirmation letter, June 2026 salary (dated June 10, 2026) — Employment and salary confirmed as of the date of this reconsideration (new evidence)
5. Return-trip ticket and itinerary, Mumbai → Toronto → Mumbai (dated May 12, 2026) — Departure 14 June, return 30 June 2026 (on file with application)
Already on file: The application package included IMM 5257, IMM 5645 family information, passport and biometrics, the wedding invitation, fixed-deposit receipts, the sanctioned-leave letter, the property records and the return-trip itinerary. The officer’s notes record concerns that, on the documents actually filed, were already answered.
New evidence (was not before the officer): A fresh employment-and-salary confirmation letter dated 10 June 2026 confirms continuing employment after the refusal date, with the same return-to-work date as the original sanctioned-leave letter.
All listed items are enclosed with this request.
1. FD-A receipt and balance certificate, ICICI Bank, account ****-4421 (dated April 22, 2026) — INR 18,50,000 fixed deposit, non-redeemable until October 2027 — stable funds not reflected in the notes (on file with application)
2. FD-B receipt and balance certificate, HDFC Bank, account ****-9018 (dated February 14, 2026) — INR 12,00,000 fixed deposit, non-redeemable until May 2028 (on file with application)
3. Employer sanctioned-leave letter on company letterhead (dated May 4, 2026) — Paid leave 14–30 June 2026, return-to-work 1 July 2026 (on file with application)
4. Updated employment confirmation letter, June 2026 salary (dated June 10, 2026) — Employment and salary confirmed as of the date of this reconsideration (new evidence)
5. Return-trip ticket and itinerary, Mumbai → Toronto → Mumbai (dated May 12, 2026) — Departure 14 June, return 30 June 2026 (on file with application)
Already on file: The application package included IMM 5257, IMM 5645 family information, passport and biometrics, the wedding invitation, fixed-deposit receipts, the sanctioned-leave letter, the property records and the return-trip itinerary. The officer’s notes record concerns that, on the documents actually filed, were already answered.
New evidence (was not before the officer): A fresh employment-and-salary confirmation letter dated 10 June 2026 confirms continuing employment after the refusal date, with the same return-to-work date as the original sanctioned-leave letter.
All listed items are enclosed with this request.
8.
FEDERAL COURT CLOCK AND PARALLEL PATHS
Under section 72 of the IRPA, an application for leave and for judicial review must be served and filed within 60 days (matter arising outside Canada) after the day the applicant is notified of the decision; an extension may be granted for special reasons. On the refusal date given, that leave window runs to on or about July 27, 2026. Whether to file for leave and judicial review under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act remains under consideration. The reconsideration request does not pause the section 72 clock; the leave window stated below applies regardless.
Position: I am taking advice on whether to file an application for leave and for judicial review to the Federal Court within the 60-day section 72 window, in parallel with this reconsideration. The reconsideration is the proportionate first step on a misread-evidence file.
Position: I am taking advice on whether to file an application for leave and for judicial review to the Federal Court within the 60-day section 72 window, in parallel with this reconsideration. The reconsideration is the proportionate first step on a misread-evidence file.
9.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DECISION
Please acknowledge receipt of this reconsideration request and confirm the date it was received. I ask the officer to contact me if any further information or document would assist in deciding the request, and that the reconsideration decision be communicated in writing with brief reasons. All my rights are reserved, including the right to apply for leave and for judicial review to the Federal Court under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
YOURS SINCERELY,
Priya R. Khanna
Applicant
Date: ____________________
APPLICANT
Priya R. Khanna
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is an IRCC Reconsideration Request?
A reconsideration request asks the IRCC visa officer who refused your application to reopen and reconsider it. It is not a statutory right — it rests on the officer’s residual discretion, and the Federal Court of Appeal in <em>Canada (MCI) v Kurukkal</em>, 2010 FCA 230 confirmed that the doctrine of functus officio does not bar a visa officer from reopening a decision. In practice, a well-built reconsideration request commonly succeeds where the original refusal overlooked a document that was on file, misread the evidence, was issued on a record that has since changed materially, or rests on a clerical or administrative error. There is no fee.
What changed in 2025 was the level of transparency. From 29 July 2025, IRCC began attaching the officer’s GCMS decision notes (ODNs) directly to many temporary-resident refusal letters — visitor visas, visitor records, study and work permits — so the applicant now reads the officer’s reasoning at the same time as the refusal. That makes a reconsideration request more powerful: instead of guessing the concern, the response can engage with the notes paragraph by paragraph. For permanent residence streams, eTAs, TRPs and applications filed through the new IRCC Portal, the notes still arrive through an ATIP request (Privacy Act request free for citizens and permanent residents; Access to Information Act request $5 for foreign nationals through a Canadian representative, with consent form IMM 5744).
A reconsideration request does not pause the Federal Court clock. Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, an application for leave and for judicial review must be served and filed within 15 days (matter arising in Canada) or 60 days (matter arising outside Canada) after the day you are notified of the refusal. Where the leave window is short and the refusal is clearly unreasonable, many applicants file in parallel — leave to preserve the route, reconsideration alongside. The template builds the reconsideration request and records the leave-and-JR position on the file.
What's Covered in This Template
The letter follows the structure a visa officer reads through — applicant, refusal, outcome sought, grounds, evidence, parallel paths — and adapts to your application stream and the kind of error the refusal made.
Decision-Type Streams
Choose visitor visa, study permit, work permit, permanent residence (incl. Express Entry) or spousal sponsorship — the letter rewrites the framing for the stream IRCC was actually deciding.
Officer-Notes Rebuttal
Where the refusal includes the GCMS officer decision notes (29 July 2025+), the letter answers them paragraph by paragraph; where it doesn’t, an ATIP-pending sentence preserves the position until the notes arrive.
Five-Ground Framework
Pick overlooked documents, misread evidence, financial misinterpretation, new evidence (Kurukkal) or technical error — the Expert clause writes the matching legal argument around your facts.
Evidence Schedule
A numbered list of supporting documents, each tagged as "already on file with application" or "new evidence", with what it proves — the structure Goel v Canada, 2025 FC 275 expressly called for.
Federal Court 15/60-Day Clock
Auto-computes your section 72 leave window from the refusal date and your location (in-Canada / outside) so the letter records that the reconsideration request does not pause that clock.
Parallel-Path Position
A clear statement of whether judicial review is being prepared in parallel, undecided, or off the table — so the file shows a deliberate choice rather than an inadvertent waiver.
UCI & Office Routing
UCI and application number on the subject bar, IRCC office routing on the recipient — the request goes to the office that refused, not the local consulate or client-support line.
Outcome Options
Approve on the existing record, reopen with new evidence, or restore status and reassess — the request asks for what is actually achievable on the file.
Canadian Letter Format
Subject bar with UCI and application number, intro engaging with Kurukkal, no fee — formatted for an IRCC officer to action and place on the file.
How to Create Your IRCC Reconsideration Request
Five steps from refusal letter to filed request.
- 1
Read the Refusal — and the Notes
Check whether the refusal letter includes the officer decision notes (common since 29 July 2025 for visitor / study / work refusals). If it does, work paragraph by paragraph; if not, file the request now and supplement once the ATIP notes arrive.
- 2
Choose the Stream and Ground
Pick the application type (visitor / study / work / PR / spousal) and the closest ground of refusal (overlooked, misread, financial, new evidence, technical) — the template adapts the legal framework to your choice.
- 3
Build the Rebuttal (Expert)
Quote or paraphrase the notes, state the correct position, and answer the concern line by line with the document on file that proves the point.
- 4
Build the Evidence Schedule (Expert)
Number every document — already on file or new evidence — and say in one line what each one shows.
- 5
Record the JR Position and File
State whether you are filing for leave and judicial review in parallel, then send the request to the office that issued the refusal (named in the refusal letter, not the client-support line).
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations
IRCC reconsideration sits inside the broader Canadian immigration appeal architecture — and the recourse landscape has shifted in 2025.
This template provides general information about IRCC reconsideration requests and is not legal advice. For complex files — misrepresentation findings, medical inadmissibility, criminality, or refusals at short leave deadlines — consult a Canadian immigration lawyer or a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC). Federal Court leave applications are technical: deadlines are strict, and Notices to the Court should not be filed without advice.
Reviewed for Canadian immigration law
The Source of the Discretion — Kurukkal and Goel
Reconsideration is not a statutory remedy under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (MCI) v Kurukkal, 2010 FCA 230 confirmed that the doctrine of functus officio does not bar a visa officer from reopening a decision; the officer retains a residual discretion. The Federal Court in Goel v Canada (MCI), 2025 FC 275 added that a refusal to reconsider can itself be unreasonable on judicial review where the officer ignored a meritorious explanation — engagement with the applicant’s case is the test.
Officer Decision Notes — the 29 July 2025 Change
Since 29 July 2025, IRCC has been proactively attaching officer decision notes (ODNs) to many temporary-resident refusal letters — visitor visas, visitor records, study and work permits. The change does not yet apply to eTAs, Temporary Resident Permits, permanent-residence refusals, or applications filed through the new IRCC Portal. For those streams, the notes still arrive through an ATIP request — free under the Privacy Act if you are a Canadian citizen or permanent resident; $5 under the Access to Information Act if you are a foreign national, via a Canadian representative using consent form IMM 5744.
The Federal Court 15/60-Day Clock — Section 72
Under section 72 of the IRPA, an application for leave and for judicial review may be served and filed within 15 days after the day you are notified of the decision (matter arising in Canada) or 60 days (matter arising outside Canada). Filing a reconsideration request does not pause that clock. An extension may be granted "for special reasons", but practice on the Federal Court is to file leave before the window closes wherever possible. The Court applies a reasonableness standard on the merits (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12).
When Reconsideration Is the Wrong Tool
Reconsideration suits files where evidence was overlooked, misread, has changed materially, or where a technical error affected the outcome. It is not the right tool where the officer’s decision was reasonable on the evidence then before them — in those cases, a fresh application addressing the concerns is usually the right route, and a section 72 leave application is the wrong tool for any disagreement that does not turn on procedural fairness or reasonableness.
Where Reconsideration Sits in the Wider File
For procedural fairness letters (PFLs), our IRCC procedural fairness response template builds the concern-by-concern rebuttal on the Baker v Canada framework. For new applications addressing officer concerns proactively, our IRCC letter of explanation template writes the stream-specific framework. For spousal sponsorship support, the statutory declaration of common-law union template (IMM 5409) is the recognised affidavit form. For Super Visa or visitor visa invitations, our visitor visa invitation letter template handles the host side.
Frequently Asked Questions
Reopen the File on the Officer’s Own Notes
Create your IRCC reconsideration request in minutes: stream-specific framework, paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of the officer’s GCMS decision notes, a numbered evidence schedule and the parallel Federal Court clock, in formal Canadian letter format. Download the PDF free, or unlock Expert for the full rebuttal, schedule and JR-position clauses.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required