Logo of A&M Canadian Immigration law Corporation

A.A. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1811 : Mandamus Refused for Gaza TRV Applications Where Policy Conditions, Including Biometrics, Remained Unfulfilled

In A.A. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1811, the Federal Court dismissed an application for mandamus brought by a Palestinian family living in Gaza who sought to compel IRCC to process their Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) applications within 15 days. Although the Court recognized the severe humanitarian circumstances facing the family and accepted that they had a legitimate expectation that their applications would be processed in a timely manner, it held that mandamus could not issue because the Applicants had not satisfied all conditions precedent under the Gaza Temporary Public Policy, particularly the requirement to provide biometrics.

Key Principle

A mandamus applicant must establish all elements of the Apotex test, including a clear right to performance of the public duty and satisfaction of all conditions precedent. A humanitarian crisis, even one involving an extreme risk to life, cannot by itself permit the Court to rewrite or vary the requirements of a Ministerial public policy. Where operational circumstances prevent an applicant from satisfying a policy condition, the Court cannot simply dispense with that condition through mandamus.

The Court also confirmed that while applicants under the Gaza Policy had a legitimate expectation of timely processing, that expectation arose only once the Policy’s conditions were fulfilled.

Background

The Applicants were a family of five living in Gaza under extremely difficult humanitarian conditions. Their anchor relative submitted the required crisis webform in January 2024 and received reference codes in March. TRV applications were submitted on April 3, 2024. IRCC subsequently initiated high-priority security screening, including additional inquiries concerning the adult male Applicant’s employment and social media accounts. No final decision had been rendered by the time of the hearing in November 2025.

The Gaza Policy was established under s. 25.2 of IRPA and facilitated TRVs for eligible Palestinian nationals with qualifying Canadian relatives. Applicants were required to satisfy specified conditions, including providing biometrics. Because the Rafah crossing had closed, the Applicants could not leave Gaza to provide biometrics.

Court Findings

Public duty and legitimate expectation: The Court accepted that IRCC had a legal duty to process applications made under the Policy, but there was no specific statutory timeframe within which IRCC was required to complete them. Nevertheless, the Applicants had a legitimate expectation that their applications would be dealt with in a timely manner given the nature and purpose of the Policy.

Biometrics as a condition precedent: The Applicants had not provided biometrics, a clear Policy requirement. Although the inability to provide them resulted from the Rafah border closure and was entirely beyond their control, the Court held that this prevented them from establishing a clear right to mandamus.

Delay and security screening: The Court found no unreasonable delay. Approximately 18 months had elapsed, but security screening remained active, including high-priority screening involving multiple government departments and foreign states. The Court held that the circumstances justified the continued processing period.

Section 12.8 of the IRPR: The Court noted that s. 12.8 may potentially exempt applicants from biometric requirements where collection is impossible or impracticable. However, the Applicants had not raised this issue with IRCC before coming to Court. The Court encouraged them to raise it with IRCC.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for mandamus. The Court emphasized that it could not vary or rewrite the Gaza Policy, even in light of the Applicants’ desperate humanitarian circumstances. No question of general importance was certified and there was no order as to costs.

 

Case Citation:

A.A. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1811 (CanLII)

Visit our Social Media:

CATEGORIES

Case Law Library (741)Case Law Update - January 2026 (13)Case Law Update - February 2026 (9)Case Law Update - March 2026 (12)Case Law Update - April 2026 (9)Case Law Update - May 2021 (6)Case Law Update - May 2022 (10)Case Law Update - May 2023 (10)Case Law Update - May 2024 (13)Case Law Update - May 2026 (11)Case Law Update – May 2025 (18)Case Law Update - June 2026 (24)Case Law Update - Apr. 2022 (11)Case Law Update - Apr. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Apr. 2024 (14)Case Law Update - Aug. 2021 (8)Case Law Update - Aug. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Aug. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Aug. 2024 (7)Case Law Update - Aug. 2026 (8)Case Law Update - Dec. 2021 (9)Case Law Update - Dec. 2023 (6)Case Law Update - Dec. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Dec. 2025 (11)Case Law Update - Feb. 2021 (3)Case Law Update - Feb. 2022 (11)Case Law Update - Feb. 2023 (14)Case Law Update - Feb. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jan. 2021 (3)Case Law Update - Jan. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Jan. 2023 (9)Case Law Update - Jan. 2024 (13)Case Law Update - Jul. 2021 (9)Case Law Update - Jul. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Jul. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Jul. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jul. 2025 (16)Case Law Update - Jul. 2026 (13)Case Law Update - Jun. 2021 (14)Case Law Update - Jun. 2022 (9)Case Law Update - Jun. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Jun. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jun. 2025 (9)Case Law Update - Mar. 2021 (2)Case Law Update - Mar. 2022 (10)Case Law Update - Mar. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Mar. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Nov. 2021 (11)Case Law Update - Nov. 2023 (12)Case Law Update - Nov. 2024 (14)Case Law Update - Nov. 2025 (11)Case Law Update - Oct. 2021 (10)Case Law Update - Oct. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Oct. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Oct. 2025 (13)Case Law Update - Sep. 2021 (10)Case Law Update - Sep. 2022 (10)Case Law Update - Sep. 2023 (6)Case Law Update - Sep. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Sep. 2025 (17)Case Law Update – Apr. 2021 (4)Case Law Update – Apr. 2025 (9)Case Law Update – Aug. 2025 (8)Case Law Update – Dec. 2022 (10)Case Law Update – Feb. 2025 (8)Case Law Update – Jan. 2025 (17)Case Law Update – Mar. 2025 (17)Case Law Update – Nov. 2022 (11)Case Law Update – Oct. 2022 (6)

About The Author

Picture of Dr. Muhammad Abrar

Dr. Muhammad Abrar

Barrister & Solicitor

From temporary status to PR, get expert legal help to choose the right immigration pathway.

Contact our office for details. Our immigration legal service in Winnipeg will assess your eligibility per CIC criteria and submit your application.