Background
Mohammad Reza Sabour, an Iranian national, applied for a Canadian temporary resident visa in April 2023 to visit his two adult daughters who are Canadian citizens. More than three years passed without a decision. During that time, he missed significant milestones in his daughters’ lives, including the wedding of his eldest daughter and the surgery of his youngest. His repeated requests to the government for a status update or explanation went unanswered.
In early 2026, Sabour brought an application for judicial review in the Federal Court, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to render a decision on his visa application. The government’s only offered justification for the delay was a request sent to the applicant in April 2026 — three years into the process — seeking information about his prior government service, apparently related to security screening.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Battista granted the application and ordered the government to issue a decision on Sabour’s temporary resident visa within 30 days. Applying the mandamus test from Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), as recently clarified in Benison v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53, the Court found that the delay — roughly 11 to 12 times longer than the applicable 98-day service standard — far exceeded what the nature of the process required. The Court held that the government’s justification for the delay was neither transparent nor intelligible, and therefore unreasonable.
The Court also rejected the Minister’s argument that the balance of convenience favoured denying the order. The government provided no evidence that rendering a visa decision would prejudice any ongoing security investigation, and the Court noted that any such investigation could continue independently after a decision was made. Costs of $2,000 on a solicitor-and-client basis were awarded to the applicant, the Court finding “special reasons” under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules given the excessive delay and the government’s repeated failure to respond to the applicant’s inquiries.
Key Takeaways
- A visa processing delay of over three years — approximately 11–12 times the applicable service standard — satisfies the threshold for mandamus, shifting the burden to the government to provide a transparent and intelligible justification.
- A vague, belated request for information (here, made three years into the process) is insufficient to justify prolonged delay; the government must provide specific reasons to discharge its onus.
- The possibility of an ongoing security screening does not automatically tip the balance of convenience in the government’s favour; the government must adduce evidence that compelling a decision would actually prejudice that process.
- “Special reasons” warranting a costs award can be found where the government repeatedly ignores the applicant’s inquiries and forces the applicant to litigate merely to learn the basis for the delay.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that indefinite administrative inaction in visa processing is subject to meaningful judicial oversight. Courts will not accept opaque, last-minute explanations as sufficient justification for delays that stretch years beyond published service standards, particularly where the applicant has a compelling personal interest — here, maintaining a family relationship with Canadian citizen daughters.
For immigration practitioners, the case confirms the continued viability of mandamus applications where the government fails to process temporary resident visa applications within a reasonable time and fails to respond to status inquiries. It also signals that costs awards are available in such cases, providing a further incentive for the government to handle applications in a timely and communicative manner.