Joel Sandaluk is a partner at Mamann Sandaluk LLP and a senior immigration and refugee lawyer with over 25 years of experience. Since his call to the Ontario Bar in 2000, Joel has practiced exclusively in the field of Canadian immigration and refugee law.
He leads the firm’s Litigation and Enforcement Practice Group, where he represents clients in complex and high stakes matters before the Federal Court of Canada, Ontario Courts, and all divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).
Joel’s practice focuses on a wide range of litigation and enforcement matters, including:
- Refugee protection claims
- Immigration detention reviews
- Sponsorship and deportation appeals
- Inadmissibility cases involving medical, criminal, or national security concerns
- Judicial reviews and appeals before the Federal Court
- Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications
- Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs)
Recognized for his strategic advocacy and hearing room expertise, Joel regularly advises individuals facing removal from Canada, including those subject to enforcement actions by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).
In addition to his legal practice, Joel plays a key role in mentoring and supervising associate lawyers at the firm, ensuring the delivery of exceptional legal representation across all files.
Joel is a frequent media commentator on immigration policy, refugee protection, and border enforcement. He is regularly consulted by Canadian and international media outlets and has appeared on national television and in major publications.
He is a sought-after speaker at continuing professional development (CPD) programs hosted by the Law Society of Ontario, the Canadian Bar Association, Osgoode Hall Law School, and the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.
Joel is an active member of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) Immigration Section and the Refugee Lawyers Association (RLA).
Called to the bar of Ontario 2000
Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
Ontario Bar Association
BA University of Alberta 1995
LLB Osgoode Hall Law School 1998
The Federal Court stayed execution of the Applicants’ removal order pending judicial review of the refusal of their refugee claim, finding a serious issue as to whether the Refugee Board acted unreasonably by treating delay as the determinative basis for designating the claim “manifestly unfounded.”
Teixeira v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 124
The Federal Court allowed this application for judicial review of an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division, finding that the applicant’s right to procedural fairness was breached when he was required to proceed with the appeal hearing without counsel. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the interests at stake, the adversarial nature of proceedings before the IAD, and the evolving complexity of the legal issues involved, all of which made it unfair to compel the applicant to continue without legal representation.
Mahmood v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1808
The Federal Court granted judicial review of the refusal of a humanitarian and compassionate application, finding the decision both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Court held that the H&C officer applied the wrong legal test in assessing hardship related to the applicant’s Christian faith in China. Specifically, the officer improperly required evidence of a personalized risk of persecution rather than assessing hardship arising from systemic discrimination. The Court further found that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the evidentiary record. This included a failure to properly consider country conditions evidence documenting the persecution of Christians in China.
Lin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 185
The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the family’s appeals despite finding that there had been a total breach of the residency obligation. The panel found that the breach was significant and that there were multiple negative factors weighing against the appellants. However, the Division placed substantial weight on the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision. It also found that the family had made sincere and genuine efforts to establish themselves in Canada following their recent arrival. Taken together, these considerations were sufficient to justify the exercise of discretionary relief in the family’s favour.
Bhuiyan v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2021 CanLII 134225
The Refugee Protection Division accepted the claims of an Egyptian family after finding they faced real danger from ISIS because the wife was believed to have assisted police after a terrorist attack. The tribunal granted the family’s claim, ruling that the Egyptian authorities could not protect them, and found there was nowhere in Egypt where they could safely relocate.
X(Re) (Refugee Protection Division) (unreported) November 29, 2024
The Refugee Protection Division accepted the claim of a stateless Palestinian who was born and lived his entire life in Saudi Arabia and who faced serious punishment after refusing to take part in workplace corruption. Once declared an illegal “runaway worker,” he was at risk of arrest, detention, and deportation with no country he could safely return to. The tribunal found that Saudi Arabia was unable or unwilling to protect him and recognized him as a Convention refugee.
X(Re) (Refugee Protection Division) (unreported) January 26, 2021
The Refugee Protection Division accepted the refugee claims of a stateless Palestinian mother and her six children after finding they faced serious gender-based discrimination and persecution in Saudi Arabia. Even though the tribunal had some doubts about parts of their story, it accepted that women without status there face severe restrictions and that the state could not or would not protect them. The family was recognized as Convention refugees because there was nowhere in Saudi Arabia where they could safely live.
X(Re) (Refugee Protection Division) (unreported) December 27, 2019
Joel Sandaluk is a partner at Mamann Sandaluk LLP and a senior immigration and refugee lawyer with over 25 years of experience. Since his call to the Ontario Bar in 2000, Joel has practiced exclusively in the field of Canadian immigration and refugee law.
He leads the firm’s Litigation and Enforcement Practice Group, where he represents clients in complex and high stakes matters before the Federal Court of Canada, Ontario Courts, and all divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).
Joel’s practice focuses on a wide range of litigation and enforcement matters, including:
- Refugee protection claims
- Immigration detention reviews
- Sponsorship and deportation appeals
- Inadmissibility cases involving medical, criminal, or national security concerns
- Judicial reviews and appeals before the Federal Court
- Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications
- Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs)
Recognized for his strategic advocacy and hearing room expertise, Joel regularly advises individuals facing removal from Canada, including those subject to enforcement actions by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).
In addition to his legal practice, Joel plays a key role in mentoring and supervising associate lawyers at the firm, ensuring the delivery of exceptional legal representation across all files.
Joel is a frequent media commentator on immigration policy, refugee protection, and border enforcement. He is regularly consulted by Canadian and international media outlets and has appeared on national television and in major publications.
He is a sought-after speaker at continuing professional development (CPD) programs hosted by the Law Society of Ontario, the Canadian Bar Association, Osgoode Hall Law School, and the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.
Joel is an active member of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) Immigration Section and the Refugee Lawyers Association (RLA).
Called to the bar of Ontario 2000
Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
Ontario Bar Association
BA University of Alberta 1995
LLB Osgoode Hall Law School 1998
The Federal Court stayed execution of the Applicants’ removal order pending judicial review of the refusal of their refugee claim, finding a serious issue as to whether the Refugee Board acted unreasonably by treating delay as the determinative basis for designating the claim “manifestly unfounded.”
Teixeira v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 124
The Federal Court allowed this application for judicial review of an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division, finding that the applicant’s right to procedural fairness was breached when he was required to proceed with the appeal hearing without counsel. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the interests at stake, the adversarial nature of proceedings before the IAD, and the evolving complexity of the legal issues involved, all of which made it unfair to compel the applicant to continue without legal representation.
Mahmood v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1808
The Federal Court granted judicial review of the refusal of a humanitarian and compassionate application, finding the decision both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Court held that the H&C officer applied the wrong legal test in assessing hardship related to the applicant’s Christian faith in China. Specifically, the officer improperly required evidence of a personalized risk of persecution rather than assessing hardship arising from systemic discrimination. The Court further found that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with the evidentiary record. This included a failure to properly consider country conditions evidence documenting the persecution of Christians in China.
Lin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 185
The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the family’s appeals despite finding that there had been a total breach of the residency obligation. The panel found that the breach was significant and that there were multiple negative factors weighing against the appellants. However, the Division placed substantial weight on the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision. It also found that the family had made sincere and genuine efforts to establish themselves in Canada following their recent arrival. Taken together, these considerations were sufficient to justify the exercise of discretionary relief in the family’s favour.
Bhuiyan v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2021 CanLII 134225
The Refugee Protection Division accepted the claims of an Egyptian family after finding they faced real danger from ISIS because the wife was believed to have assisted police after a terrorist attack. The tribunal granted the family’s claim, ruling that the Egyptian authorities could not protect them, and found there was nowhere in Egypt where they could safely relocate.
X(Re) (Refugee Protection Division) (unreported) November 29, 2024
The Refugee Protection Division accepted the claim of a stateless Palestinian who was born and lived his entire life in Saudi Arabia and who faced serious punishment after refusing to take part in workplace corruption. Once declared an illegal “runaway worker,” he was at risk of arrest, detention, and deportation with no country he could safely return to. The tribunal found that Saudi Arabia was unable or unwilling to protect him and recognized him as a Convention refugee.
X(Re) (Refugee Protection Division) (unreported) January 26, 2021
The Refugee Protection Division accepted the refugee claims of a stateless Palestinian mother and her six children after finding they faced serious gender-based discrimination and persecution in Saudi Arabia. Even though the tribunal had some doubts about parts of their story, it accepted that women without status there face severe restrictions and that the state could not or would not protect them. The family was recognized as Convention refugees because there was nowhere in Saudi Arabia where they could safely live.
X(Re) (Refugee Protection Division) (unreported) December 27, 2019
Client reviews
Mark Peterson
From the first meeting, I felt in good hands. The lawyer was patient, understanding, and explained everything in simple terms. I truly appreciate the support and guidance I received throughout the process.
Jessica Thompson
CANADA
CANADA
I had an excellent experience with this lawyer. They were professional, clear in their communication, and always available when I had questions. My case was handled with great care, and I am very satisfied with the outcome.
Amanda Collins
CANADA
CANADA
Highly efficient and results-driven lawyer. They quickly understood my situation and took immediate action. Their expertise made a big difference, and I would definitely recommend their services.
Daniel Roberts
CANADA
CANADA
Trustworthy, honest, and highly experienced. I felt confident knowing my case was in capable hands. I would recommend this lawyer to anyone in need of legal help.