Reconsideration request or fresh application?

After a refusal a client has, broadly, three moves: ask the officer to reconsider, apply again, or challenge the decision in court. Picking the wrong one costs time and sometimes prejudices the file.

Reconsideration

Appropriate where you can point to a specific error the officer made on the material in front of them — a document that was submitted but not assessed, a factual mistake (wrong date, misread figure), or a clear procedural fairness problem. It is a request, not a right; there is no set timeline and no obligation to grant it. Keep the letter short, attach proof of the error, and ask for a specific outcome.

Fresh application

The default where the refusal turned on the officer's assessment of the evidence — ties, funds, intent, genuineness. You cannot argue an officer into a different judgement call; you rebuild the file so a different officer reaches a different conclusion. Address the recorded concern directly (get the notes first), fix anything that has weakened since, and note in the submission that a prior refusal exists and how the new evidence responds to it.

Judicial review

For decisions that are unreasonable or procedurally unfair and where the client wants that specific decision quashed — often because a re-application is not available or a bar is in play. It is time-limited from the date of the decision, so identify it as an option immediately rather than after a slow reconsideration fails.

The practical filter

If new or better evidence would plausibly change the outcome, re-apply. If the decision is wrong on what was already there, reconsider or seek review. Do not run a reconsideration purely to "keep the file alive" — a weak one on the record can hurt the next application.