Skip to main content
Lawgical Law
Corporation
(778) 598-3785 Book a consultation

Refusal reasons that look copy-pasted or AI-written: when you can challenge them, and when you can’t

By Sundeep S. Grewal, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation · Reviewed November 10, 2026

Published

Sundeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2018, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Updated November 10, 2026: section 72 of the Act and the Federal Court’s decisions in Akhoondian (2025) and Singh (2025) checked that day.

The fix: get the officer’s notes and compare them with your evidence. If the generic reasons ignore or contradict what you filed, judicial review. If they still engage with your facts, a better new application is usually the answer.

The deadline: 15 days from the refusal if you are in Canada, 60 days if outside (IRPA s.72).

Why a lawyer: “it’s boilerplate” is not a winning argument by itself. The winning argument is that the reasons don’t fit your evidence, and that has to be shown line by line. Why a lawyer

Book a consultation

The lawyers who review these refusals

Sundeep S. Grewal, Barrister and SolicitorSundeep S. GrewalBarrister and SolicitorPrabhpreet Kaur Sangha, Barrister and SolicitorPrabhpreet Kaur SanghaBarrister and SolicitorPardeep S. Grewal, Barrister and SolicitorPardeep S. GrewalBarrister and Solicitor
About our lawyers

Sundeep S. Grewal founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.

Pardeep S. Grewal is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.

If your refusal letter or the officer’s notes read like a template, with the same phrases you have seen in other people’s refusals, you are not imagining it. IRCC officers use standard wording, and IRCC uses software tools to help sort and process files. But the Federal Court has said that boilerplate language “is not itself a concern so long as the decision maker turned their minds to the facts of the case”. What wins is showing that the generic reasons don’t fit your evidence: they ignore what you filed, contradict it, or are so general that the Court cannot tell how the officer reached the result. Arguing that a machine made the decision has not worked without evidence.

Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, reviews refusal reasons against the record and takes unreasonable decisions to the Federal Court; this guide is by Sundeep S. Grewal.

Book a consultation about your judicial review TapClick to open a short form. Our team will contact you to arrange a time.Short form, 4 quick fields Open form

When are generic reasons a problem?

  • They contradict your evidence: for example, saying you have no family ties at home when your spouse and children live there.
  • They ignore key evidence: a central document that answers the officer’s concern is never mentioned.
  • They don’t explain the result: read with the record, the Court cannot tell how the factors were weighed.
  • They are not a problem when, read as a whole with the record, they show the officer dealt with your actual facts.

Why this needs a lawyer

One lawyer, one file, every step:

  • getting the officer’s notes and lining them up against your evidence;
  • identifying the finding that is contradicted or unexplained;
  • judicial review within the deadline;
  • a stronger new application where court is not the best route.

Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can appear for you in the Federal Court.

What has the Federal Court said?

Boilerplate that didn’t fit the record: refusal set aside. In Akhoondian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1181, an Iranian art teacher’s visitor visa was refused. The notes on family ties contained only “generic boilerplate language”, and a line that she worked in “a vocation with high mobility rates and job insecurity” had no basis in her evidence of four years with the same school. On July 3, 2025, the Court set the decision aside: boilerplate that does not let the Court see the officer’s reasoning lacks the required justification.

Boilerplate, but the officer engaged with the facts: refusal upheld. In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1768, a truck driver argued his work permit refusal was written by software rather than an officer. The Court dismissed the application on November 3, 2025. It found some findings unreasonable, but the officer had dealt with the real gap in the file (no evidence of who would pay for mandatory Class 1 driver training), and the claim that software, not the officer, made the decision was not proven.

The lesson I take from these cases is to put the template aside and ask one question: does any part of the reasons contradict or ignore what we actually filed? That is the argument the Court responds to.

What are my options?

  1. Get the officer’s notes if they did not come with the refusal.
  2. Judicial review within the deadline if the reasons contradict, ignore or fail to explain your evidence.
  3. A new application that fills the gaps, if the reasons, generic or not, point to a real weakness.
  4. Ask IRCC to reconsider only for a clear error, and never instead of protecting the court deadline.

Generic refusal reasons at a glance

Situation Likely result in court Source
Boilerplate that contradicts your evidence Often set aside Akhoondian, 2025 FC 1181
Boilerplate, but the officer dealt with the real issue Usually upheld Singh, 2025 FC 1768
“A computer decided” with no evidence Not proven Singh, 2025 FC 1768
Court deadline 15 days in Canada; 60 days outside IRPA s.72(2)(b)

Worked example: the family ties line

Example. A father overseas is refused a visitor visa to see his daughter in Abbotsford. The notes say he lacks “significant family ties” at home, though his wife, son and grandchildren live with him and he filed proof. Within 60 days, his lawyer files for judicial review, setting out the evidence the boilerplate line ignored.

Mistakes I have seen

  • I have seen applicants build a whole case on “this was decided by AI” without any evidence.
  • I have seen applicants reapply with the same documents after a generic refusal that pointed to a real gap.
  • I have seen people miss the deadline while waiting for the officer’s notes.

Frequently asked questions

Does IRCC use AI to decide applications?

IRCC says it uses advanced analytics and other automated tools to sort applications for review and, in some programs, to approve the eligibility of routine applications automatically. It says: “Our tools don’t refuse or recommend refusing applications.”

IRCC describes Chinook as a tool that brings information from its case management system into one view for officers reviewing temporary residence applications. It says Chinook “doesn’t use advanced analytics or artificial intelligence” and does not make or recommend decisions, though it can display notes generated by other automated reviews.

My refusal is identical to my friend’s. Is that enough?

No. What matters is whether the reasons fit your file. Identical wording can still be reasonable if it matches your facts.

Should I wait for my notes before filing?

Don’t let the deadline pass waiting. Your lawyer can file and get the notes through the court process.

See our guides on recent Federal Court refusal decisions, what happens when judicial review is granted, a refusal made by mistake and Iranian work permit refusals. See also our guide on getting the officer’s GCMS notes after a refusal.

What should I do right now?

Write down the date of the refusal and count the deadline. Put the officer’s notes beside your application and mark every line that ignores or contradicts your evidence. Get advice before the deadline.

Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford or Vancouver, or online from anywhere.

Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑

Sources (official)

This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.