Court: Challenge the Law, Not the Officer, When Deportation is Mandatory
- Citation
- 2026 FC 144
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-24134-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Jackson v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2026 FC 144
A permanent resident with a criminal conviction for forgery was found inadmissible for serious criminality by the Immigration Division (ID). He argued the resulting mandatory deportation order violated his Charter rights, but the ID issued the order.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, affirming that the applicant's Charter challenge was improperly directed. Because the ID had no legislative discretion to refrain from issuing a deportation order once inadmissibility was established, the proper target for the challenge was the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) itself, not the ID's administrative decision.
Key Quote from the Court
If the deportation order infringed the Applicant's Charter rights, the IRPA and not the ID was the cause.
Expert Takeaways
-
Target the Correct Source of Harm A Charter challenge must be aimed at the source of the alleged rights violation. If a decision-maker is compelled by law to act and has no discretion, the challenge must be against the constitutionality of the legislation, not the administrative action.
-
Understand Mandatory vs. Discretionary Powers In cases of serious criminality, once the Immigration Division confirms the facts, the issuance of a deportation order is mandatory under IRPA. The ID cannot use discretion to apply a Charter-values analysis to avoid issuing the order.
-
Properly Constitute Your Constitutional Challenge When challenging the law itself, specific legal procedures, like filing a 'Notice of Constitutional Question,' are required. Failing to challenge the legislation directly when it is the source of the issue will be fatal to the case.
-
The ID Can Hear Constitutional Challenges The Court confirmed the ID is a 'court of competent jurisdiction' and can decide a Charter challenge to legislation. However, the applicant must actually raise that specific challenge, which did not happen in this case.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Refused by IRCC?
You may have only 15 to 60 days to challenge the decision. Speak with our team before the deadline passes.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More recent Federal Court rulings
Federal Court: Challenge Admissibility Referral Delays at the Immigration Division First
Federal Court: Officer Must Meaningfully Engage with Systemic Racism Evidence
Court: Past Failures Don't Justify Mandamus if Problem is Now Resolved
Federal Court: IRCC Cannot Destroy PR Card Without Justifying Notice
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)