Background
Naser Mansoursharifloo, an Iranian citizen with a doctorate in mechanical engineering and past employment at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and Islamic Azad University, applied from outside Canada for a visitor visa on January 17, 2024. Immigration records showed that the application was marked “approved pending info from partners” on February 27, 2024, but no final decision followed.
Mansoursharifloo repeatedly sought updates, offered to attend an interview outside Iran, and offered to provide additional documents. After receiving no meaningful response, he demanded a decision and then applied for mandamus. Immigration authorities requested his CV in June 2026, which he promptly supplied, but the record disclosed no subsequent action. By the hearing, the application had remained in security screening for 911 days, compared with published processing estimates that had ranged from 36 to 162 days during the relevant period.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court granted the mandamus application. It found that the delay was longer than the visitor-visa process required, that Mansoursharifloo was not responsible for it, and that the Minister had not supplied a satisfactory, case-specific justification. Although security screening is important and published processing times are not guarantees, the record contained no evidence explaining why this application required more than 900 days of screening or showing that it was unusual, complex, or non-routine.
The Court held that Mansoursharifloo had established a prima facie entitlement to mandamus. The late request for his CV did not cure the prolonged inaction, particularly because he had previously offered to provide further documents. The Minister also produced no evidence supporting a discretionary refusal of relief under the final four Apotex factors or justifying the requested additional 120 days.
The Court ordered the Minister to decide the visitor-visa application as soon as possible and, in any event, within 60 days of the judgment. It did not direct what the visa decision must be and awarded no costs.
Key Takeaways
- Processing estimates are relevant but not determinative; whether delay is unreasonable depends on the nature and purpose of the proceeding, the causes and length of the delay, and the matter’s complexity.
- A bare assertion that security screening remains underway does not justify a lengthy delay without evidence, at least in publicly disclosable general terms, explaining the case-specific reasons for the screening and its duration.
- Once an applicant establishes a prima facie entitlement to mandamus, discretionary denial requires evidence supporting an adequate alternative remedy, lack of practical value, an equitable bar, or an adverse balance of convenience.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that immigration authorities cannot rely indefinitely on unexplained security screening to answer a mandamus application. Courts will not dictate how security reviews must be conducted, but they require enough evidence to assess whether the resulting delay is justified.
For visa applicants, the ruling also confirms that significant prejudice is not required to establish unreasonable delay. Where the applicant has fulfilled all requests, demanded performance, and faced prolonged unexplained inaction, the Federal Court may impose a firm deadline for a decision without directing its outcome.