---

📖 Quick Summary

What is a Reconsideration Request?

A reconsideration request asks the Minister of Public Safety to reconsider a danger opinion that has already been issued. Unlike Federal Court judicial review, which challenges the legality of the decision, reconsideration asks the Minister to exercise discretion to revisit the decision based on new evidence, changed circumstances, or errors in the original decision.

Important: There is no statutory right to reconsideration. The Minister has discretion to consider or decline reconsideration requests. Reconsideration is rare and exceptional, not a routine remedy.

When Reconsideration May Be Appropriate

Situation	Example	Likelihood of Success
Significant New Evidence	New psychological assessment showing dramatically reduced risk	Moderate – if evidence is truly new and material
Changed Circumstances	Country conditions have worsened significantly since decision	Moderate – if change is substantial and well-documented
Clear Error in Original Decision	Minister relied on incorrect facts or misunderstood key evidence	Low to Moderate – difficult to prove
Passage of Time with Rehabilitation	Several years have passed with continued rehabilitation and no incidents	Low – usually not sufficient alone
Change in Law or Policy	New case law or policy changes relevant to your case	Low to Moderate – depends on significance

Grounds for Reconsideration

✅ Strong Grounds:

New Material Evidence that did not exist at the time of the original decision and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. Examples include a new forensic psychological assessment conducted after the danger opinion was issued showing significantly reduced risk, new country condition reports issued after the decision showing dramatically worsened conditions, new medical evidence of serious health conditions that developed after the decision, or significant life events such as birth of a child or marriage that occurred after the decision.

Material Change in Circumstances since the original decision that affects the Suresh balancing test. Examples include substantial deterioration in country conditions making removal more dangerous, significant rehabilitation achievements since the decision such as completing advanced programs or maintaining years of crime-free behavior, new family circumstances such as becoming a parent or primary caregiver, or changes in Canadian law or policy that affect how danger opinions are assessed.

❌ Weak Grounds:

Evidence that was available during the original process but was not submitted, additional arguments or submissions based on the same facts, disagreement with the Minister’s assessment or weighing of evidence, or general passage of time without specific new evidence or changed circumstances.

The Reconsideration Process

Step 1: Assess Whether Reconsideration is Appropriate

• Do you have truly new evidence or materially changed circumstances?
• Is the new evidence or change significant enough to potentially affect the outcome?
• Have you already filed or are you planning to file Federal Court judicial review?

Step 2: Gather New Evidence

• Obtain new psychological assessments, country condition reports, or other expert opinions
• Gather documentation of changed circumstances
• Organize evidence clearly with dates showing when it became available

Step 3: Prepare Written Reconsideration Request

• Brief cover letter explaining you are requesting reconsideration
• Detailed written submissions explaining grounds for reconsideration
• Clear identification of what is new and why it is material
• Explanation of how new evidence or changed circumstances affect the Suresh balancing test
• Supporting documents organized in appendices

Step 4: Submit Request to Minister

• Address request to Minister of Public Safety Canada
• Send by registered mail or courier with proof of delivery
• Keep copies of everything submitted

Step 5: Wait for Response

• No timeline for Minister to respond
• May take months or longer
• Minister may grant reconsideration, deny request, or not respond

Reconsideration vs. Federal Court Judicial Review

Aspect	Reconsideration	Federal Court Judicial Review
Nature	Discretionary request to Minister	Legal challenge to decision
Right	No right; Minister’s discretion	Statutory right within 15 days
Grounds	New evidence, changed circumstances	Errors of law, procedural fairness, unreasonableness
Timeline	No deadline; can request anytime	Must file within 15 days of decision
Success Rate	Very low; rare	Higher if grounds exist
Remedy	Minister reconsiders and may change decision	Court sets aside decision and sends back for redetermination
Strategy	Supplement to judicial review, not replacement	Primary remedy for challenging danger opinions

Key Point: Reconsideration should not replace Federal Court judicial review. If you have grounds for judicial review, file within the 15-day deadline. You can pursue reconsideration at the same time or after judicial review.

What to Include in Your Reconsideration Request

Cover Letter:

• Brief statement that you are requesting reconsideration
• Reference to the original danger opinion (date and file number)
• Summary of grounds (new evidence, changed circumstances, or error)
• Request for Minister to reconsider the decision

Written Submissions (5-10 pages):

• Introduction identifying the danger opinion being challenged
• Explanation of grounds for reconsideration with specific details
• Description of new evidence or changed circumstances with dates
• Analysis of how new information affects the Suresh balancing test
• Conclusion requesting that Minister reconsider and withdraw danger opinion

Supporting Documents:

• New psychological assessments, country condition reports, or other expert opinions
• Documentation of changed circumstances
• Any other relevant new evidence
• Organized in appendices with table of contents

Realistic Expectations

Reconsideration is difficult and rare. The Minister is not obligated to reconsider danger opinions, and most reconsideration requests are denied or ignored. However, reconsideration may be worth pursuing when you have compelling new evidence or significant changed circumstances, when Federal Court judicial review is not available or was unsuccessful, or when substantial time has passed and circumstances have changed materially.

Do not rely solely on reconsideration. If you have grounds for Federal Court judicial review, that should be your primary strategy. Reconsideration is a supplementary option, not a replacement for judicial review.

Key Takeaways

🔹 No right to reconsideration – Minister has discretion; not guaranteed

🔹 Strong grounds required – New evidence or materially changed circumstances

🔹 Not a replacement for judicial review – File judicial review within 15 days if grounds exist

🔹 Rare and difficult – Success rate is very low

🔹 May be worth pursuing – If you have compelling new evidence or significant changes

🔹 No timeline for response – Minister may take months or may not respond

🔹 Work with legal counsel – Experienced lawyer can assess whether reconsideration is appropriate

Need Help with a Reconsideration Request? Our experienced immigration lawyers can assess whether reconsideration is appropriate for your situation and prepare a compelling request. Contact us for a consultation.

📚 Complete Guide

Introduction: Understanding Ministerial Reconsideration

When the Minister of Public Safety issues a danger opinion under Section 115(2)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the primary remedy is Federal Court judicial review, which must be filed within fifteen days. However, there is another option that is less well-known and rarely successful but may be appropriate in certain circumstances: requesting that the Minister reconsider the danger opinion.

Reconsideration is an administrative law concept based on the principle that decision-makers have inherent discretion to reconsider their own decisions in light of new information or changed circumstances. The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed in Kurukkal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FCA 230, that immigration officers retain discretion to reconsider decisions when there is new, material evidence that was not available at the time of the original decision.

However, reconsideration is discretionary, not a right. The Minister is not obligated to reconsider danger opinions, and there is no formal process, timeline, or guarantee of a response. Reconsideration requests are rarely granted. Despite these challenges, reconsideration may be worth pursuing when you have compelling new evidence, when circumstances have changed materially since the original decision, or when Federal Court judicial review is not available or was unsuccessful.

This guide explains when reconsideration may be appropriate, what grounds can support a reconsideration request, how to prepare and submit a request, and how reconsideration fits into your overall legal strategy.

When Reconsideration May Be Appropriate

Reconsideration is not appropriate in every case. Before pursuing reconsideration, you must assess whether you have grounds that might persuade the Minister to exercise discretion to revisit the decision.

Significant New Evidence. The strongest ground for reconsideration is new, material evidence that did not exist at the time of the original decision and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. New evidence must be truly new, meaning it came into existence after the danger opinion was issued or after the deadline for your submissions. It must also be material, meaning it is relevant to the Suresh balancing test and could potentially affect the outcome. Examples of new evidence that might support reconsideration include a new forensic psychological assessment conducted after the danger opinion showing significantly reduced risk based on continued rehabilitation and the passage of time, new country condition reports issued after the decision documenting a substantial deterioration in conditions that increases the risk you face if removed, new medical evidence of serious health conditions that developed after the decision and affect your ability to be removed or the hardship you would face, or significant life events that occurred after the decision such as the birth of a child, marriage, or becoming a primary caregiver for a family member.

Material Change in Circumstances. Even if there is no new documentary evidence, a material change in circumstances since the original decision may support reconsideration. Changed circumstances must be substantial and must affect one or more of the Suresh factors. Examples include substantial deterioration in country conditions making removal significantly more dangerous, significant rehabilitation achievements since the decision such as completing advanced rehabilitation programs, maintaining several years of crime-free behavior, obtaining stable employment, or achieving other milestones, new family circumstances such as becoming a parent, taking on caregiving responsibilities, or changes in your family members’ situations that increase the hardship of your removal, or changes in Canadian law or policy that affect how danger opinions are assessed or how the Suresh factors are balanced.

Clear Error in the Original Decision. If the original danger opinion was based on a clear error of fact or law, this may support reconsideration. However, this ground is difficult because the Minister is unlikely to acknowledge error, and if there was a legal error, Federal Court judicial review is the more appropriate remedy. Examples of errors that might support reconsideration include the Minister relied on incorrect factual information that was material to the decision, the Minister misunderstood or mischaracterized key evidence, or the Minister failed to consider relevant evidence that was submitted.

Passage of Time with Continued Rehabilitation. In some cases, substantial time has passed since the danger opinion was issued, and you have continued to demonstrate rehabilitation, maintain crime-free behavior, and strengthen your ties to Canada. While passage of time alone is generally not sufficient to support reconsideration, when combined with concrete evidence of continued rehabilitation and changed circumstances, it may strengthen a reconsideration request.

Grounds That Are NOT Sufficient for Reconsideration

It is equally important to understand what does not constitute valid grounds for reconsideration, as pursuing reconsideration on weak grounds wastes time and resources and is unlikely to succeed.

Evidence That Was Available But Not Submitted. If evidence existed at the time of the original decision but you failed to submit it, this does not support reconsideration. The Minister will reasonably expect that you submitted all available evidence during the original process. If you forgot to submit evidence or your lawyer failed to include it, the remedy is not reconsideration but potentially a complaint against your lawyer or, in rare cases, a judicial review arguing that you were denied procedural fairness due to inadequate legal representation.

Additional Arguments on the Same Facts. If you want to make additional legal arguments or present a different interpretation of the same evidence that was before the Minister, this does not support reconsideration. The Minister considered the evidence and arguments you presented and made a decision. Simply disagreeing with how the Minister weighed the evidence or interpreted the law is not a ground for reconsideration. If the Minister made a legal error, the remedy is Federal Court judicial review, not reconsideration.

Disagreement with the Decision. The fact that you disagree with the danger opinion or believe the Minister weighed the Suresh factors incorrectly is not a ground for reconsideration. The Minister has discretion in balancing the Suresh factors, and reasonable people can disagree about how the balance should be struck. Disagreement with the outcome is not a basis for reconsideration.

General Passage of Time. The mere passage of time since the danger opinion was issued, without specific new evidence or changed circumstances, is generally not sufficient for reconsideration. While the passage of several years combined with concrete evidence of rehabilitation and changed circumstances may support reconsideration, time alone is not enough.

The Reconsideration Process: Step by Step

There is no formal process for requesting reconsideration of a danger opinion. However, the following steps provide a practical framework for preparing and submitting a reconsideration request.

Step One: Assess Whether Reconsideration is Appropriate. Before investing time and resources in a reconsideration request, carefully assess whether you have grounds that might persuade the Minister to reconsider. Ask yourself whether you have truly new evidence that did not exist at the time of the original decision and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. Consider whether circumstances have changed materially since the original decision in ways that affect the Suresh balancing test. Evaluate whether the new evidence or changed circumstances are significant enough that they could potentially change the outcome. If you have already filed or are planning to file Federal Court judicial review, consider how reconsideration fits into your overall legal strategy. Consult with an experienced immigration lawyer to assess whether reconsideration is appropriate and likely to succeed.

Step Two: Gather New Evidence. If you decide to pursue reconsideration, gather all new evidence that supports your request. This may include obtaining a new forensic psychological assessment if sufficient time has passed and you have continued rehabilitation, collecting new country condition reports that document changed conditions, gathering documentation of changed circumstances such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, employment letters, or medical records, and organizing all evidence with clear dates showing when it became available or when circumstances changed.

Step Three: Prepare Written Reconsideration Request. Your reconsideration request should include a brief cover letter, detailed written submissions, and supporting documents. The cover letter should be one page stating that you are requesting reconsideration of the danger opinion, referencing the original danger opinion by date and file number, briefly summarizing the grounds for reconsideration, and requesting that the Minister reconsider the decision. The written submissions should be five to ten pages providing an introduction that identifies the danger opinion being challenged and provides background, an explanation of the grounds for reconsideration with specific details about what is new or what has changed, a description of the new evidence or changed circumstances with dates showing when they arose, an analysis of how the new information affects each of the three Suresh factors, and a conclusion requesting that the Minister reconsider the danger opinion and withdraw it in light of the new information. Supporting documents should be organized in appendices with a table of contents and should include new psychological assessments, country condition reports, or other expert opinions, documentation of changed circumstances, and any other relevant new evidence.

Step Four: Submit Request to Minister. Address your reconsideration request to the Minister of Public Safety Canada. You can find the current mailing address on the Public Safety Canada website. Send the request by registered mail or courier with proof of delivery so you have confirmation that it was received. Keep copies of everything you submit, including the cover letter, written submissions, and all supporting documents.

Step Five: Wait for Response. There is no timeline for the Minister to respond to reconsideration requests. The Minister may take weeks, months, or longer to respond, or may not respond at all. If the Minister grants your reconsideration request, you will be notified and the Minister will reconsider the danger opinion. This does not guarantee that the danger opinion will be withdrawn, only that it will be reconsidered. If the Minister denies your request or does not respond, you can continue to pursue other remedies such as Federal Court judicial review if you have not already done so.

Reconsideration vs. Federal Court Judicial Review: Understanding the Difference

It is critical to understand the difference between reconsideration and Federal Court judicial review, as they serve different purposes and have different requirements, timelines, and success rates.

Federal Court Judicial Review is a legal challenge to the danger opinion filed in Federal Court. You have a statutory right to seek judicial review within fifteen days of receiving the danger opinion. Judicial review challenges the legality of the decision, arguing that the Minister made an error of law, violated procedural fairness, or reached an unreasonable decision. If judicial review is successful, the Federal Court sets aside the danger opinion and sends the matter back to the Minister for redetermination. Judicial review has a higher success rate than reconsideration when there are valid legal grounds.

Reconsideration is a discretionary request asking the Minister to revisit the danger opinion based on new evidence or changed circumstances. There is no right to reconsideration, no deadline for requesting it, and no guarantee of a response. Reconsideration is based on new information that was not available during the original process, not on legal errors. If reconsideration is granted, the Minister may withdraw the danger opinion or issue a new decision. Reconsideration has a very low success rate and is rare.

How They Fit Together. Reconsideration should not replace Federal Court judicial review. If you have grounds for judicial review, you must file within the fifteen-day deadline or you will lose the right to judicial review. You can pursue reconsideration at the same time as judicial review or after judicial review is complete. Some individuals pursue reconsideration while awaiting a decision on judicial review. Others pursue reconsideration after judicial review is unsuccessful, particularly if new evidence or changed circumstances have emerged since the judicial review was decided. Reconsideration is a supplementary option, not a replacement for judicial review.

Realistic Expectations: The Challenges of Reconsideration

It is important to have realistic expectations about reconsideration. Reconsideration of danger opinions is difficult and rare. The Minister is not obligated to reconsider decisions, and most reconsideration requests are denied or ignored. The Minister has already conducted a thorough review of your case and issued a danger opinion after considering all the evidence and arguments you presented. The Minister is unlikely to reconsider unless there is compelling new information that significantly changes the analysis.

Despite these challenges, reconsideration may be worth pursuing in certain circumstances. If you have compelling new evidence such as a new psychological assessment showing dramatically reduced risk or new country condition reports showing substantially worsened conditions, reconsideration may be appropriate. If substantial time has passed since the danger opinion and you have continued to demonstrate rehabilitation, maintain crime-free behavior, and strengthen ties to Canada, reconsideration combined with new evidence of these achievements may be worth pursuing. If Federal Court judicial review is not available because the fifteen-day deadline has passed, or if judicial review was unsuccessful, reconsideration may be one of the few remaining options.

However, do not rely solely on reconsideration. The success rate is very low, and there is no guarantee of a response. Reconsideration should be part of a broader legal strategy that includes Federal Court judicial review if grounds exist, stay of removal applications to prevent deportation while pursuing remedies, and continued efforts to strengthen your case through rehabilitation and building ties to Canada.

Conclusion: Reconsideration as a Supplementary Strategy

Reconsideration of danger opinions is a discretionary, exceptional remedy that is rarely granted but may be appropriate when you have compelling new evidence, materially changed circumstances, or when other remedies are not available. Reconsideration should not replace Federal Court judicial review, which is the primary remedy for challenging danger opinions. However, reconsideration can be a valuable supplementary strategy when pursued at the right time with strong grounds and realistic expectations.

If you are considering requesting reconsideration of a danger opinion, consult with an experienced immigration lawyer who can assess whether reconsideration is appropriate for your situation, help you gather and organize new evidence, prepare compelling written submissions, and advise you on how reconsideration fits into your overall legal strategy. While reconsideration is difficult, in the right circumstances with the right evidence, it may provide an opportunity to have the danger opinion reconsidered and potentially withdrawn.

Related Resources

Explore these related guides to learn more:

1. Understanding “Danger to the Public” in Canadian Immigration Law
2. Critical Deadlines and Timeline Management
3. Finding Qualified Immigration Legal Representation

Legal Citations and References

1. Kurukkal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FCA 230
2. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 115
3. Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1
4. ENF 28: Ministerial Opinions – Danger to the Public, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

---