Aman Sandhu

Aman Sandhu, LLB

Aman’s passion for helping his clients is motivated by his families own transition from India to Canada. His practice is client-focused, and he is well known for his creative and innovative immigration strategies employed on each of his files. He provides services in English and Punjabi.

Aman can be contacted at aman@sandhulawyers.com and 604-592-5434 or 604-409-8995.

Aman assists individuals with:

• Previously Refused applications
• Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) and Federal Court for Sponsorship appeals
• Residency Obligation appeals
• Immigration Division Hearings on Inadmissibility Cases
• Judicial Review and Reconsideration for previously refused applications
• Procedural Fairness Letter Responses
• Criminal Rehabilitation and overcoming inadmissibility
• Misrepresentation & Inadmissibility
• Medical Inadmissibility Issues & formulating medical plans and arguments to overcome PR application refusals

Aman has extensive experience with Immigration Appeals, Judicial Review, and litigation at the Federal Court of Canada. A few of his most recent cases are:

• Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1645 – Singh applied for a work permit here in Canada, citing his 12 years driving experience in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The visa officer rejected Singh’s application and reasoned (in part) that: “…the applicant’s work experience as a Truck Driver is entirely limited to the UAE, the terrain and weather conditions of which are significantly different compared to those in Canada.” Aman Sandhu argued that this was an unreasonable decision and the Federal Court of Canada agreed.

This case was recently published by CBC Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/unfamiliar-b-c-weather-doesn-t-justify-denying-work-permit-to-experienced-truck-driver-judge-says-1.6679984

• Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 680 – Aman successfully appealed a refusal decision on the grounds of H&C to the Federal Court. The Federal Court agreed with Aman’s submissions that the Officer unreasonably required Ms. Kaur to demonstrate that she had experienced past personal discrimination or had been subject to violence. The Federal court said: “the Officer failed to meaningfully assess the hardship Ms. Kaur may face upon return to India. The Officer noted that Ms. Kaur had not provided “specific examples surrounding how she has been a victim of discrimination, violence or crime.” An applicant for H & C relief need not demonstrate that they have experienced past personal discrimination or have been a victim of crime in order for related objective country condition evidence to be relevant to an officer’s analysis of the future hardship they may face.”
• Hundal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 72 – this was an appeal for a mother and her two children seeking refugee status in Canada. On the first instance, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) granted their application. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration then appealed the decision. On appeal the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) set aside a decision from the RPD, without a hearing.  Aman then appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Canada and successfully argued that the RPD erred by admitting new evidence that raised a serious credibility issue without considering whether to convene an oral hearing under IRPA subsection 110(6).
• Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 790 – this was an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada where the party’s application under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) for a work permit and temporary resident visa was refused. Aman successfully argued that the decision was not reasonable within the legal framework. Aman argued that it was not sufficient for an officer to simply “run through” the grounds of a refusal as an apparent checklist. The Federal Court stated that: “[i]n summary, the Officer provides no rationale for arriving at their conclusion, stating only that they had reviewed the Applicant’s application and supporting documents. It is not possible for a reader to conclude that the decision is justified against the Applicant’s evidence and the legislative constraints surrounding the issuance of a work permit.” The Court also went on to state that: “[i]n order to meet the Supreme Court’s requirements of transparency and intelligibility, the officer must explain why an applicant has failed to satisfy the particular, material element at issue.”
• Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 590 – Aman sought judicial review of a decision by a visa officer in New Delhi, India that refused the Ms. Kaur’s application for a work permit as a live-in caregiver under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). The Officer was not satisfied that Ms. Kaur’s offer of employment was genuine. Aman successfully argued that the decision was procedurally unfair.
• X (Re),2021 CanLII 141321 – this involved a family of three who were denied Convention refugee protection and were determined to not be persons in need of protection. Aman successfully appealed the decision and the court agreed that the RPD erred when it did not explore whether there are any outstanding police complaints or first information reports (FIRs) against the parties.

Chu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 CanLII 107039 – this appeal arose from a refusal to grant the applicant a sponsorship application for a permanent residence visa of her spouse from Morocco. This was the applicant’s second marriage. Aman successfully argued that the marriage was genuine and was not entered into for the primary purpose of obtaining status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

Please contact our office to schedule your free initial consultation. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us