The Federal Court Granted Your Judicial Review — What Happens Next?

Getting word that the Federal Court has granted your judicial review application can feel like the case is over and you have won. In reality, it usually means something narrower: a judge found the original decision was not made properly, and your file now goes back for a new look — not that the outcome you wanted has been guaranteed.

Judicial review of an immigration or citizenship refusal is not a rehearing of your whole case. The Federal Court does not re-weigh your evidence or decide whether you should have been approved. It only asks whether the original decision-maker followed a fair process and applied the law correctly. Once the Court agrees something went wrong, what typically follows is called redetermination.

This article walks through what redetermination usually looks like, who makes the new decision, and where a further challenge can still fit in.

What "Judicial Review Granted" Actually Means

• The Court’s role is limited to reviewing the legality and fairness of the process, not re-deciding the merits of your case.
• A "granted" judicial review typically means the Court found an error — for example, a fairness problem or a decision that was not reasonably explained.
• The usual remedy is to quash (set aside) the original decision and send the matter back — not for the Court to substitute its own approval.
• Winning judicial review restores you to the position of having an undecided application; on its own, it does not produce a positive outcome.

The Redetermination Process, Step by Step

1. The original decision is set aside. The refusal you challenged no longer stands.
2. The file returns to IRCC (or the relevant tribunal). A different officer or decision-maker is often assigned, especially where the Court’s reasons pointed to a problem with how the first officer handled the file.
3. The new decision-maker reviews the file again, applying the legal principles set out in the Court’s reasons for judgment.
4. You may be asked for updated information. Because redetermination can happen well after your original application, the decision-maker may want current documents, especially if your circumstances have changed.
5. A new decision is issued. It could be an approval, but it could also be another refusal — as long as this time the process and reasoning are legally sound.

What the New Decision-Maker Can and Cannot Do

The decision-maker on redetermination must follow the legal guidance in the Court’s reasons, but is not required to approve your application simply because the first decision was flawed. They can:

• Reach the same conclusion as before, provided they fix the specific problem the Court identified.
• Request new evidence or clarification.
• Apply current law and policy, which may have changed since your original application was filed.

They generally cannot simply reissue the same refusal using the same reasoning the Court already found deficient.

How Long Does Redetermination Take?

There is no fixed, published timeframe for how quickly a file moves through redetermination, and it varies by decision-maker and workload. Rather than counting on a specific window, plan around the reality that redetermination is a full second look at your file, not a formality — treat it with the same seriousness as your original application.

When a Second Judicial Review Might Be Necessary

If the new decision on redetermination is also a refusal, you generally have the same type of options you had the first time: consider whether the new decision has its own legal flaws, and if so, whether a fresh application for leave to the Federal Court is worth pursuing. Each redetermination refusal is a new decision with its own clock for seeking leave, so do not assume you are protected by your earlier judicial review win.

Frequently asked questions