Background
Seyyed Hossein Samiei, an Iranian citizen, applied for a study permit. After waiting 15 months for a decision, he sought judicial review and a writ of mandamus compelling Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to decide his application. The parties jointly asked the Federal Court to determine the matter solely on written submissions.
IRCC had requested Samiei’s military records on April 30, 2025, and he responded on May 14, 2025. The evidence also showed that his application remained subject to security screening and background checks. Samiei argued that study permit applications ordinarily were expected to be processed within weeks, but he submitted no evidence establishing the applicable IRCC service standard.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Go dismissed the application. Because Samiei bore the burden of satisfying the mandamus test, his failure to provide evidence of the relevant processing standard undermined his claim that the 15-month delay was unreasonable. Processing timelines change over time, so the Court could not determine the applicable benchmark without evidence.
The Court further held that, even if the delay were assumed to be unreasonable, the government had provided a reasonable justification. The record showed that IRCC was investigating Samiei’s military history, had requested additional information, and had referred the application for background screening. That activity also defeated the contention that IRCC had refused to perform its duty.
Because the asserted excessive delay and absence of justification were not established, the balance of convenience did not favour mandamus. The Court dismissed both the judicial-review application and the request for mandamus, without costs.
Key Takeaways
- An applicant seeking mandamus bears the burden of proving each condition for that extraordinary remedy, including unreasonable delay.
- IRCC processing standards may inform whether a delay is unreasonable, but applicants must place evidence of the applicable standard before the Court because timelines change.
- Documented requests for military records and an ongoing security or background screening can reasonably justify processing time and show that IRCC has not refused to act.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the evidentiary demands of immigration-delay litigation. A lengthy wait alone may not establish entitlement to mandamus when the applicant does not prove the relevant processing benchmark or address evidence explaining why the file is taking longer.
It also distinguishes a bare assertion of security screening from a documented record of active processing. Here, concrete evidence that IRCC had sought military information and referred the file for background checks was sufficient to justify at least part of the delay and weigh against judicial intervention.