Federal Court grants more time for Application Records in immigration judicial reviews

Judicial Reviews

May 12

On May 8, 2025, the Federal Court issued a new Practice Direction and Special Order that will significantly affect how immigration applicants and their counsel approach the leave and judicial review process. Although procedural in nature, this change reflects the broader systemic challenges the Court and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have been grappling with over the past several years.

To fully appreciate the impact of this measure, it is important to understand not only the change itself but also the context that made such an intervention necessary.

The Judicial Review Process Before the Special Order

The process for seeking judicial review in immigration applications involves several distinct stages, each governed by strict deadlines under the Federal Courts Rules. The process begins when an applicant files an Application for Leave and Judicial Review (ALJR), which is the formal commencement of the proceedings. Once the Court accepts the filing, it issues a Rule 9 Notice, which triggers the next critical phase: the filing of the Applicant’s Record.

Under Rule 10(1), the Applicant’s Record, which includes key documents such as the decision under review, relevant portions of the administrative record, and the applicant’s written representations, must have been filed within 30 days of the Rule 9 notice. This deadline was historically rigid, and any request for additional time required the applicant to obtain the consent of the DOJ or seek relief by way of a formal motion. In practice, this placed additional procedural burdens on applicants and their counsel, particularly in cases where delays stemmed from factors beyond their control.

The Crisis of Backlogs and System Overload

Over the past few years, the Federal Court has faced an unprecedented surge in ALJR filings in immigration matters. By the end of 2024, the number of immigration-related judicial reviews had ballooned to nearly four times the pre-pandemic average, and the trend has only accelerated in 2025.

Several factors have contributed to this surge. Notably, visa officers have adopted increasingly restrictive and, at times, inconsistent decision-making patterns, which many attribute to the deployment of automation tools such as Chinook. This system, designed to expedite decision-making by streamlining officer reviews, has drawn criticism for leading to procedurally deficient decisions, often featuring boilerplate language, minimal reasoning, or even complete omissions in the officers’ assessments. In our practice, we’ve seen more and more GCMS notes where officers provide little to no meaningful explanation as to how they arrived at their conclusions, leaving applicants with no choice but to seek judicial intervention.

At the same time, the Court’s Registry and DOJ counsel have been stretched thin, struggling to process the deluge of files and manage the mounting caseloads. Combined with federal budget constraints and reduced staffing, the entire system has been under immense pressure, creating administrative bottlenecks that have made timely access to justice increasingly difficult.

The New Measure: Extending Time for Applicant’s Record by 45 Days

In response to this crisis, the Federal Court has introduced a Special Order that allows applicants to file their Applicant’s Record within an additional 45 days beyond the 30-day limit prescribed by Rule 10(1). Crucially, this extension does not require the consent of the DOJ or a motion for leave, effectively providing applicants with up to 75 days from the Rule 9 notice to perfect their application.

It is important to underscore that this change does not affect the initial deadlines to commence an ALJR, which remain strict and jurisdictional, typically 15 days for inland decisions and 60 days for overseas decisions under the IRPA. The extension applies solely to the second stage of the process, after the Rule 9 notice is issued and the applicant is preparing their Record.

Implications: Alleviating Systemic Pressure, but at What Cost?

The Court’s intent with this measure is clear: by providing additional time at the Applicant’s Record stage, it hopes to alleviate immediate pressure on both the Registry and DOJ counsel. This will allow applicants and their representatives more breathing space to prepare their records, engage in settlement discussions, and avoid procedural defaults purely due to registry delays or resource constraints. For the DOJ, this may translate into fewer motions for extensions of time to manage, and potentially more opportunities to resolve matters at an early stage without overburdening the hearing schedule.

However, there is an undeniable risk that this change will also have the unintended effect of incentivizing more applicants to file ALJRs, particularly in cases where they aim to use the extended timelines to negotiate settlements with the DOJ rather than pursue hearings to conclusion. By lowering procedural hurdles, the Special Order could trigger an even greater volume of filings, putting further strain on an already overstretched system.

Nevertheless, this is a pragmatic and necessary stopgap solution, reflecting the Court’s efforts to balance access to justice with administrative realities. Counsel would be well-advised to use this additional time strategically rather than tactically, focusing on ensuring high-quality records and representations while also proactively exploring avenues for early resolution, especially where GCMS notes reveal procedural gaps, inadequate reasoning, or decisions that cannot withstand even basic scrutiny.

Conclusion

The May 8, 2025, Special Order represents a critical procedural adjustment in the face of a system under siege, but it is not a panacea. It provides welcome relief at the Applicant’s Record stage but leaves the broader systemic issues, the surge in poorly reasoned refusals, the overreliance on decision automation tools, and the chronic underfunding of the Court and DOJ, untouched.

For now, practitioners and litigants must navigate these turbulent waters carefully, balancing procedural discipline with strategic flexibility, while recognizing that the long-term health of the system will depend on reforms that reach well beyond the confines of the Court’s Rules.

Summary:

Special Order:

Find the text of the Special Order here.

What Changed?

Applicants now have an automatic additional 45 days to file the Applicant’s Record after the issuance of the Rule 9 notice. This extends the total filing window to 75 days without requiring DOJ consent or a motion.

What Did NOT Change?

The deadlines to commence an ALJR remain strict (15 days inland, 60 days overseas).
The extension applies only to the Applicant’s Record, not the initial application filing itself.