The transcript names the success rate for reconsideration requests: 5%. But relying on this figure, according to the consultant, isn’t worthwhile: a submission is built on reasoning and legal grounds, not on statistics. A request has a chance when it clearly names the grounds for reviewing the decision.

Why statistics mean little

According to the material, the low percentage isn’t explained by the system refusing indiscriminately, but by how requests are submitted. Many applicants make decisions emotionally and submit a request without relying on the legal aspects that could provide grounds for reconsideration. Even people who are right don’t always highlight these aspects.

When a request is filed, the review relies on what the applicant has set out in it. No one will search for arguments on their behalf. So requests often fail for two reasons: the circumstances presented are irrelevant or cannot reopen the case; and emotions take over, so the applicant doesn’t question the very purpose and substance of this procedure.

When a request makes sense

A reconsideration is filed not because the procedure seems simple, but because there is justification. If there are no grounds, then in the case described, the consultant refused to take the case, explaining that the applicant would only get nice words without any result.

In another described case, it concerned a breach of procedural fairness regarding an entry ban. Here too, honesty about the situation matters: if a decision has already been made in favor of refusal, it’s worth soberly assessing whether there is a real basis for review in the case, rather than hoping for a miracle.

Why reconsideration requests fail

Two reasons named in the transcript

  • Arguments are irrelevant to the caseThe circumstances presented cannot reopen the case
  • Emotional decisionThe applicant doesn’t question the purpose and substance of the procedure

Who can file a request on their own

The material directly advises filing the request on one’s own, and seeking a text review only for legal formatting if needed. At the same time, it’s emphasized that a consultant or lawyer who accepts an agreement from an applicant who has no right to such a procedure is acting improperly. Such an agreement isn’t normal practice.

On the consultant’s professional status

The host of the transcript is a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant and a member of the professional college, CICC. In the video, she addresses the audience on the topic of immigration to Canada in order to provide information for an informed choice. Her motto is “status over visa”: meaning going beyond visas to statuses.