Background
Pengyu Liu applied for a work permit on August 22, 2024, to conduct paid research as a PhD student at the University of Alberta. His security assessment passed on April 29, 2026. In May 2026, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) requested updated medical and employment information. Liu did not respond to these requests, and his application was refused on June 24, 2026, for non-compliance under sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Liu subsequently sought judicial review, requesting an order of mandamus to compel IRCC to make a decision on his work permit application, alleging unreasonable delay in processing.
Liu did not appear at the hearing before the Federal Court, despite proper notice. The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as moot or, alternatively, that mandamus should be denied.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Battista dismissed both the application for judicial review and the request for mandamus. The court held that although the application was not moot—because a live dispute remained regarding whether unreasonable delay had occurred—Liu could not establish a prima facie entitlement to mandamus. The third criterion of the Apotex test for mandamus requires a clear right to performance of the duty, which includes evidence of a demand, reasonable time to comply, and a subsequent refusal (express or implied). The court found no such refusal existed.
Critically, when IRCC issued its decision on June 24, 2026, refusing Liu’s application for non-compliance, it performed its administrative duty to finalize the application. This performance of the duty meant Liu could not establish the unreasonable delay necessary for mandamus. The court noted that although the matter was not moot in the abstract, the practical effect was that Liu had no viable remedy because the administrative process was complete.
Key Takeaways
- Mandamus requires a refusal to perform a public duty; issuing a decision—even an adverse one—constitutes performance of that duty and defeats the mandamus claim.
- Mootness and absence of remedy are distinct doctrines; an application may be “not moot” yet still lack a practical remedy available to the court.
- Establishing unreasonable delay is significantly more difficult once a final decision has been rendered, as the duty has already been discharged.
- Applicants seeking mandamus to compel immigration decisions should act before a decision is issued; post-decision mandamus based on delay is unlikely to succeed.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important limitation on mandamus in Canadian immigration law. Applicants dissatisfied with immigration decisions cannot circumvent judicial review by framing their challenge as an unreasonable delay claim once a decision has been made. The court’s reasoning reflects a balance between access to justice and judicial economy: while mootness doctrine may not technically apply, the practical unavailability of an effective remedy achieves a similar result. This creates a timing trap for immigration applicants—the window to seek mandamus for delay closes once IRCC issues its decision, whether that decision is positive or negative.
The decision also illustrates the Federal Court’s cautious approach to mandamus in administrative law contexts. By requiring a demonstrated refusal (not merely delay), courts preserve mandamus as a remedy for governmental inaction while avoiding its use as a backdoor appeal mechanism for adverse administrative decisions. For practitioners advising immigration clients, this underscores the importance of pursuing delay-based arguments before a final decision is rendered.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.