Malvika Mahindra is an Associate Lawyer with a focus on immigration litigation and appellate advocacy. She represents clients before all levels of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the Federal Court of Canada. Known for her strategic and compassionate approach, Malvika regularly handles complex immigration matters, including refugee claims, removal proceedings, and humanitarian applications.
Malvika holds an Honours Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from York University and earned her LL.B. from the University of Sussex in Brighton, England. Prior to joining the firm, she articled and practiced at a boutique immigration and refugee law firm in the Greater Toronto Area, where she developed a strong foundation in appellate work and procedural advocacy.
Her practice includes preparing detailed procedural fairness responses, Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications, temporary resident permits, Judicial Reviews, Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (PRRAs), emergency stay of removal motions, detention reviews, and refugee claims. Malvika is deeply committed to providing informed, transparent, and client-centered representation, and is proud to advocate for individuals and families navigating Canada’s immigration system.
Called to the bar of Ontario 2024
Ontario Bar Association
BA York University 2018
LLB University of Sussex 2021
Hindi, French
The Immigration Division ordered the Person Concerned’s release from detention after finding that the imposition of strict release conditions could manage concerns about public safety and flight risk. Although authorities were still investigating his past criminal record abroad, the tribunal accepted that living with a bondsperson, paying a substantial bond, regular reporting, and a curfew were sufficient to keep the public safe. He was released while his immigration case continues.
Immigration Division – Detention Review 0003-C5-01356-01 (unpublished), November 28, 2025
The Refugee Protection Division accepted the claims of a Haitian woman and her daughter after finding they faced serious danger from gender-based violence in Haiti, Brazil, and Mexico. Even though the women had lived legally in Brazil and Mexico in the past, which weighed in favour of exclusion from refugee protection , the tribunal found that violence against women in those countries was so severe that returning them there would still put them at risk.
X(Re) Refugee Protection Division (Unreported) May 9, 2025
The tribunal accepted the refugee claims of a Mexican woman and her young daughter who were fleeing an abusive former partner with connections to a powerful drug cartel. The decision found that Mexican police were unable to provide effective protection and that the cartel had the capacity to locate the claimants anywhere in the country. Although the RPD considered the possibility of exclusion, it concluded that a clear defence to abduction applied in this case (with reference to the Canadian Criminal Code): where a parent takes their children to escape imminent harm to themselves or the children. Both claimants were therefore recognized as refugees, as their return to Mexico would place their lives at serious risk.
X(Re) Refugee Protection Division (Unreported) November 14, 2024
Malvika Mahindra is an Associate Lawyer with a focus on immigration litigation and appellate advocacy. She represents clients before all levels of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the Federal Court of Canada. Known for her strategic and compassionate approach, Malvika regularly handles complex immigration matters, including refugee claims, removal proceedings, and humanitarian applications.
Malvika holds an Honours Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from York University and earned her LL.B. from the University of Sussex in Brighton, England. Prior to joining the firm, she articled and practiced at a boutique immigration and refugee law firm in the Greater Toronto Area, where she developed a strong foundation in appellate work and procedural advocacy.
Her practice includes preparing detailed procedural fairness responses, Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) applications, temporary resident permits, Judicial Reviews, Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (PRRAs), emergency stay of removal motions, detention reviews, and refugee claims. Malvika is deeply committed to providing informed, transparent, and client-centered representation, and is proud to advocate for individuals and families navigating Canada’s immigration system.
Called to the bar of Ontario 2024
Ontario Bar Association
BA York University 2018
LLB University of Sussex 2021
Hindi, French
The Immigration Division ordered the Person Concerned’s release from detention after finding that the imposition of strict release conditions could manage concerns about public safety and flight risk. Although authorities were still investigating his past criminal record abroad, the tribunal accepted that living with a bondsperson, paying a substantial bond, regular reporting, and a curfew were sufficient to keep the public safe. He was released while his immigration case continues.
Immigration Division – Detention Review 0003-C5-01356-01 (unpublished), November 28, 2025
The Refugee Protection Division accepted the claims of a Haitian woman and her daughter after finding they faced serious danger from gender-based violence in Haiti, Brazil, and Mexico. Even though the women had lived legally in Brazil and Mexico in the past, which weighed in favour of exclusion from refugee protection , the tribunal found that violence against women in those countries was so severe that returning them there would still put them at risk.
X(Re) Refugee Protection Division (Unreported) May 9, 2025
The tribunal accepted the refugee claims of a Mexican woman and her young daughter who were fleeing an abusive former partner with connections to a powerful drug cartel. The decision found that Mexican police were unable to provide effective protection and that the cartel had the capacity to locate the claimants anywhere in the country. Although the RPD considered the possibility of exclusion, it concluded that a clear defence to abduction applied in this case (with reference to the Canadian Criminal Code): where a parent takes their children to escape imminent harm to themselves or the children. Both claimants were therefore recognized as refugees, as their return to Mexico would place their lives at serious risk.
X(Re) Refugee Protection Division (Unreported) November 14, 2024