Background
Saman Kavarizadeh and Sahar Azadinasrabadi, spouses and citizens and residents of Iran, applied from abroad for permanent residence under the Provincial Nominee class in June 2022. IRCC referred the application for security screening in December 2023. Although Ms. Azadinasrabadi’s screening was completed favourably, Mr. Kavarizadeh’s remained pending.
After repeated requests for updates and urgent processing, the applicants demanded a decision in February 2025 and commenced Federal Court proceedings in July 2025. IRCC later requested information concerning Mr. Kavarizadeh’s military service or exemption. The applicants sought mandamus compelling a decision, $10,000 in damages, and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted the application in part and issued mandamus. The applicants established a public duty owed to them, a demand for performance, and unreasonable delay. Mr. Kavarizadeh’s security screening had lasted 952 days by the hearing, and the Minister supplied no applicant-specific evidence showing that the case was unusual, complex, or non-routine. Merely stating that security screening remained underway did not satisfactorily justify the delay.
The Court found that the applicants were not responsible for the delay, despite the omission of military-service information from the original application, because the Minister conceded there was no evidence that the omission had delayed processing. With no evidence establishing a discretionary bar to relief, IRCC was ordered to process and determine the application within 90 days of judgment if the military information had already been submitted, or within 90 days after IRCC receives it if it had not.
The Court rejected the applicants’ legitimate-expectations and bad-faith arguments. Published processing times were not a clear promise that their application would be decided by a particular date, and the record did not establish bad faith. The $10,000 damages claim was dismissed because the applicants identified no viable cause of action or legal basis and submitted no evidence of damages. Costs were reserved.
Key Takeaways
- Extended security screening does not by itself justify immigration delay; the Minister must provide evidence connected to the particular application.
- IRCC’s published processing times are relevant context but neither guarantees nor firm deadlines.
- An incomplete application does not make an applicant responsible for delay without evidence that the missing information actually caused or contributed to it.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that applicants need not prove significant prejudice to establish unreasonable administrative delay. Once delay exceeds what the process reasonably requires, the government must offer a satisfactory, case-specific explanation rather than rely on general descriptions of security screening.
It also illustrates the limits of mandamus litigation: the Court can compel a timely determination without directing the outcome, while claims based on processing estimates, bad faith, or damages require distinct supporting law and evidence.