Amanat Sandhu.

Sandhu Amanat
Sandhu Amanat
Amanat Sandhu.
Overview

Amanat is an immigration lawyer with a well-rounded practice that spans both immigration litigation and economic immigration. She is experienced in a wide range of litigation matters, including judicial reviews, appeals, inadmissibility cases, H&Cs, and Pre-Removal Risk Assessments. Her litigation work is driven by a deep commitment to advocacy and a passion for helping clients navigate high-stakes immigration issues.

In addition to her immigration litigation practice, Amanat advises individuals, families, and employers in matters such as Express Entry (EE), Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs), Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs), and work permit applications. Her in-depth understanding of Canada’s economic immigration pathways allows her to provide strategic guidance tailored to each client’s goal. Amanat approaches each file with a client-centred approach and a strong drive to find effective, practical solutions for her clients. Fluent in Punjabi, Amanat is dedicated to making the immigration process more accessible and transparent to individuals and families navigating Canada’s complex immigration system.

Education
  • University of Windsor, Dual J.D. (2021)
  • York University. M.A. (2018)
  • York University, B.A. (2017)

 

Exceptional & Empathetic Legal Support!
I’m incredibly grateful to Daniel Kingwell, Christie Chan, and the entire team at Kingwell, for their exceptional support and expertise. Their expertise, empathy, and prompt responses made a challenging process much easier. It was a pleasure working with such a knowledgeable and very supportive team—I highly recommend them! Diana L

Rogi Kale

I want to thank Christian Julien for the wonderful work he did for me and my family. He is a very intelligent, transparent and dedicated person in his work. Without a doubt, he is the best.

Merit Garcia

From the day my family and I started working with Christian Julian on our complicated immigration process, he has been humble, attentive and kind in dealing with our case. Christian is always responsive and goes above and beyond to help us understand the complicated immigration process and other regulations that had an impact on our case. With Christian, we always felt safe and very well taken care of! Our application for PR and then spousal sponsorship was processed with a great deal of attention to detail and extra care. The applications that were submitted were thorough and were never returned or delayed due to missing information/ documents or incorrectly filled forms. We cannot thank him enough for his diligence and professionalism!

I highly recommend Kingwell Immigration Law firm for any immigration-related legal representation anyone may require in Canada.

Nisan G. Woldeabzghi
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)