Daniel Kingwell.

LLB, BA (Hons)
Overview

Daniel is a seasoned immigration lawyer with over 20 years of experience, heading a team representing clients in all areas of immigration law.

As a leading immigration litigator, he has successfully represented hundreds of clients in resolving complex immigration issues. In the Federal Court, he has won countless applications for leave, judicial review, and stays of removal. At the Immigration and Refugee Board, he has resolved highly contested admissibility hearings, detention reviews, removal and sponsorship appeals, and refugee claims. In federal and provincial courts, he has sought civil remedies for wrongful detention.

Prior to founding Kingwell Immigration Law, Daniel was a partner and litigation team leader at an immigration law firm recognized by his peers in Canadian Lawyer magazine as one of the very best in Canada. A lawyer’s lawyer, he regularly receives referrals from other counsel, entrusting him with their clients, family, and friends. He is frequently consulted by media, educators, and community leaders for his opinion and advice.

What sets Daniel apart is his unique combination of skill, experience, and commitment to his clients’ needs. From his many years of practice, he is able to cut to the core of the issue to find the most efficient solution to any immigration problem. This requires a level of understanding of the law and the system that can only come from his decades of experience.

Daniel never forgets that his clients’ ability to enter or remain in Canada is crucial to their lives. He is ready to fight for them tirelessly, to ensure they can remain with their family, their community, and their livelihood.

Education
  • Osgoode Hall Law School, LL.B., (1999)
  • Queen’s University, B.A. (1995)
Memberships

Thank you Daniel for doing a great job!!! My student visa application was refused two times and the Embassy ignored my third request too. Honestly, I was hopeless in 2019 and could not even imagine that someday the court would grant leave and my passport would have a visa on it. Everything happened because of Daniel Kingwell who prepared the best arguments and defended my case with great professionalism. I am so grateful for your support Daniel. I would recommend your firm to everyone who needs legal services because you guys deserve to be appreciated!

Daniela Gega

The best lawyer I and my husband met, Daniel Kingwell, gave us great help and comfort. Our immigration case was a complicated and hard journey, and yet it was a blessing to meet Daniel Kingwell in a time of much pain. He made thorough preparations and responses to give us legal help in our appeal. His attorney’s fees were very reasonable. My family is very grateful. If you need an honest and professional immigration lawyer, I strongly recommend Daniel Kingwell.

Mrs. Yoon

Our situation wasn’t the best one to begin with. My husband had been treated unfairly, and we had an urgent situation. The previous lawyer wasn’t enough, and we needed someone who’d treat us better. My husband’s rights mattered. Unfortunately, the previous lawyer just wasn’t like that. In a wild chase, we came across Daniel Kingwell. Just as we thought all hope was lost, we had found our miracle. We set up a meeting and met each other. They learned our case and saved us. Countless meetings later, we managed to find a great price and win the first of many cases. Daniel Kingwell and his colleagues have been a huge part of our lives, and we cannot thank them enough. I truly recommend them. Appreciation and Thanks, Selma and family.

Selma Shreet
After appealing to the Federal Court, PRRA applicants from Israel reconsidered.

Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applicants from Israel. The applicants claimed to be at risk as an Arab-Israeli LGBT couple. IRCC rejected their PRRA application. We successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court on the basis that the officer had refused to consider a news report of an “honour killing” in their family. The Court ordered IRCC to reconsider the application.

Musa v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2012 FC 298)

A study permit applicant from Iran has application reconsidered by IRCC after an appeal to the Federal Court.

Study permit applicant from Iran. IRCC rejected her application finding that her study plan was not logical in light of her education history. We successfully appealed to the Federal Court, arguing that the reasons were insufficient to justify the decision, and the application was sent back to IRCC for reconsideration.

M.M. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2022 FC 1098)

Refugee Protection Division ordered to redetermine refugee claim from Albania because of wrongful criminal conviction.

Refugee claimant from Albania. For a decade, he fought his case with the Minister at the Refugee Protection Division, who argued that he should be excluded from protection because of a criminal conviction. We successfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court on the basis that he was wrongfully convicted in his absence, and the RPD was ordered to redetermine his claim.

Doresi v Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (2022 FC 1300)

Study Permit application from Albania reconsidered by IRCC after appeals to the Federal Court.

Citizen from Albania applying for a study permit. IRCC rejected it, stating that her study plan was not reasonable given her education history. She requested reconsideration which IRCC also rejected. We appealed both decisions to the Federal Court and overturned the rejection, the Court agreeing that the officer had ignored her explanation that the course of studies was more specialized than her previous education and necessary for her career advancement. IRCC was required to reconsider her study permit application.

D.G. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2021 FC 1468)

Conjugal partner PR application rejected by IAD returned to IRCC for processing after appeal to the Federal Court.

Overseas sponsorship of conjugal partner from Saudi Arabia. IRCC refused the application on the basis that they did not meet the requirements of conjugal partnership, and the Immigration Appeal Division rejected their appeal. We represented them on appeal to the Federal Court, and the judge overturned the decision, agreeing that the officer and IAD had improperly considered their individual and relationship histories. Their PR application was returned to IRCC for processing.

A.H. v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2020 FC 530)