A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1514 : Mandamus Refused Where Gaza TRV Applicant Had Not Provided Required Biometrics

The Federal Court dismissed an application for mandamus brought by a Palestinian woman residing in Gaza who sought to compel IRCC to process her Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application under the Temporary public policy to facilitate temporary resident visas for certain extended family affected by the crisis in Gaza. The Court recognized the severe humanitarian circumstances facing the Applicant but held that mandamus could not issue because she had not satisfied a mandatory condition of the Policy: providing biometric information. Although the Applicant was unable to leave Gaza through no fault of her own, the Court held that it could not rewrite or exempt her from the Policy’s requirements.

Key Principle

Mandamus cannot be granted unless the applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent giving rise to a clear right to performance of the legal duty. Although IRCC had a legal duty to process the TRV application, there was no legal duty to process it within a particular timeframe before the Applicant complied with the Policy’s mandatory requirements. The Court emphasized that it is not the role of the Federal Court to set, vary, or create exemptions from a ministerial policy.

Background

The Minister established the Gaza Policy in December 2023 in response to the war and humanitarian crisis. The Applicant applied on January 14, 2024, and her application was accepted for consideration under the Policy. The Policy required applicants to submit a TRV application, be in Gaza when applying, hold a Palestinian Territory passport, identify an eligible Canadian anchor relative, establish the qualifying family relationship, and provide the required statutory declaration and documentation.

The Applicant received a biometric instruction letter on the day of her application. However, biometrics had to be provided outside Gaza. Although applicants could initially leave through the Rafah crossing, the crossing closed in May 2024, making departure impossible. By February 2025, the Applicant had passed preliminary security screening and was considered ready for visa, but her biometrics remained outstanding.

Court Findings

• Legal duty to process: The Court accepted that IRCC had a legal duty to process the application under the Policy, but rejected the existence of a duty to process it within a definite period.

• Legitimate expectation: The Applicant had a legitimate expectation that her application would be dealt with in a timely manner given the humanitarian purpose and language of the Policy. However, that expectation only operated once the Policy’s requirements were satisfied.

• Biometrics as a condition precedent: The Applicant had repeatedly demanded action, but had not provided the required biometrics. Consequently, the reasonable period for assessing delay had not begun to run. The Court acknowledged that the failure was entirely outside the Applicant’s control but held that the Policy nevertheless had to be applied as written.

• Humanitarian prejudice: The Court accepted evidence concerning the Applicant’s deteriorating living conditions, family separation, lack of food and water, and serious risks to her safety. Nevertheless, humanitarian hardship could not itself establish the clear legal right required for mandamus.

• No power to rewrite the Policy: The Court relied on Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2025 FCA 147, emphasizing that courts cannot create or grant exemptions from governmental policy through mandamus. No Charter issue had been advanced.

Outcome

The application for mandamus was dismissed. No question of general importance was certified and there was no order as to costs.

Case Citation:

A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1514 (CanLII)