Background
The applicants, an Egyptian family, received Convention refugee status in Canada in October 2021 and applied for permanent residence in December 2021. IRCC recorded receipt of the application on January 21, 2022. Biometrics were completed in December 2022, after which security screening remained in progress. The applicants repeatedly sought status updates and promptly answered IRCC’s requests for information.
On April 30, 2025—about three years and three months after IRCC received their permanent-residence application—the applicants sought judicial review and mandamus compelling a decision. Processing continued while the case was pending: IRCC requested further information in 2025 and 2026, and in August 2026 scheduled an in-person interview for mid-September. By the Court’s judgment, the application had been pending for approximately four and a half years, compared with the 28-month average processing time stated when the family applied.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted mandamus. It found that the four-and-a-half-year delay was longer than the process reasonably required and that the applicants were not responsible for it. Although average processing times are not guarantees, they remain relevant benchmarks. The delay was roughly twice the average for routine protected-person applications, and the Minister provided no evidence establishing a different expected timeframe for non-routine applications.
The Minister also failed to justify the delay with evidence tied to this family’s case. References to ongoing security screening, periodic requests for updates, and a recent interview invitation showed that the file had not been ignored and was now being actively processed, but did not explain the prolonged delay. The Court further found no public-interest or equitable reason to deny relief. It ordered the Minister to decide the application as soon as feasible and no later than 120 days after judgment, with no costs awarded.
Key Takeaways
- Posted immigration processing times are not guarantees, but they are relevant benchmarks when assessing whether administrative delay is unreasonable.
- Once an applicant shows that a delay exceeds the time inherent in the process, the government must provide evidence specifically connecting the delay to a satisfactory justification.
- Ongoing security screening alone does not justify a lengthy and uncertain delay; the government must provide at least a generally stated explanation of the case-specific complexity or concern.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that necessary security screening does not give immigration authorities an open-ended period to decide an application. Evidence that a file remains active may show it was not abandoned, but activity alone does not explain why the process took so long.
For mandamus applicants, the ruling also illustrates the importance of separating the filing date from the total delay assessed at judgment: this family commenced proceedings after about three years and three months, while the delay reached approximately four and a half years by the time relief was granted.