Officer Discretion in Immigration Decision-Making. A Comparative Analysis of Canada and the United States-2026

Immigration law is often described as a rules-based system in which outcomes follow automatically from statutory compliance. In practice, however, immigration decisions are heavily shaped by officer discretion. Immigration officers are required not only to verify documents but also to assess credibility, evaluate risk, interpret evidence, and determine whether an applicant has genuinely met the legal standard set by law. This article examines how officer discretion operates in the Canadian and United States immigration systems. It focuses on the legal foundations of discretion, its three main operational components: credibility assessment, risk assessment, and interpretation of evidence and the constitutional and administrative law limits that constrain its exercise. Drawing on statutory frameworks, recent case law, and administrative law principles, including the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vavilov (2019), the article argues that officer discretion is not arbitrary. Rather, it is a structured, reviewable form of administrative judgment that applicants and practitioners must understand in order to navigate immigration systems effectively. The article concludes by outlining practical implications for application preparation and refusal response strategies in both jurisdictions.

Immigration law; officer discretion; Canada; United States; visa refusal; credibility; risk assessment; judicial review; administrative law; comparative immigration law.

1. Banks, J. (2023). Administrative discretion and immigration decision-making. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc65/2019scc65.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (Supreme Court of Canada). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Eni, O. E. (2025). Discretion and refusal trends in Canadian temporary residence applications. Journal of Immigration and Administrative Law, 12(2), 45–68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Gibson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hathaway, J. C., and Foster, M. (2014). The law of refugee status (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (1952). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 214(b), 212(a)(6)(C)(i). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. (2025). Assessment of credibility in refugee claims. https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/legal-concepts/Pages/Credib.aspx [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (Canada). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 179(b). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2024). Consequences of immigration and citizenship fraud. Government of Canada. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. (2025). Strengthening immigration and stopping fraud. Government of Canada. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rehaag, S. (2019). Judicial review and the limits of administrative discretion in immigration law. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 56(3), 1–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2024). USCIS policy manual: Volume 8 – Admissibility, Part J (Fraud and willful misrepresentation). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. U.S. Department of State. (2025a). Visa denials. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information- resources/visa-denials.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. U.S. Department of State. (2025b). 9 FAM 302.1: Presumption of immigrant intent. https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030201.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.