Amy Louise Mayor

Amy Mayor is an Associate Lawyer with the Immigration Litigation and Enforcement team, where she represents clients in a wide range of complex immigration and refugee matters. Her practice focuses on admissibility hearings, detention reviews, removal proceedings, judicial review applications, and refugee appeals. Amy is committed to defending the rights of individuals navigating Canada’s immigration system and brings a principled, client-focused approach to every case.

Amy earned her Juris Doctor from Osgoode Hall Law School and holds both a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts from the University of Toronto. Before joining Mamann Sandaluk LLP, she operated her own immigration and refugee law practice in Toronto, where she supported Charter litigation and handled complex appeals. Her background in both litigation and policy-driven advocacy allows her to provide strategic, informed representation at all levels of the immigration process.

https://philippinereporter.com/index.php/2021/06/25/essential-worker-escario-seeks-to-stay-longer-in-canada/

https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/1754225/the-different-immigration-experiences-of-women-and-men

The Court granted a stay of removal pending determination of an application for leave and judicial review of a negative refugee appeal decision. It found there was a serious issue to be tried, particularly regarding alleged incompetence of prior representatives and a related request for an extension of time. The Court also accepted that the applicant would face irreparable harm if removed, noting that key risk evidence had not been considered previously. Balancing the interests, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay Abudoush v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) IMM-4975-26, March 20, 2026

The Court overturned a decision which found that a Tamil man would be safe if he was removed to Sri Lanka, even though there was strong evidence that he would be targeted because of his background which included past detention and time spent in Canada. Immigration officials focused too narrowly on whether he had proven past ties to militants instead of looking at the real risk he could face now. The decision was quashed and the case was sent back for redetermination. Iyampillai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1150