Asiedu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1523 : Family Sponsorship PR Application – Mandamus Granted After Three-Year Processing Inactivity

The Federal Court reviewed Jude Yaw Asiedu’s request for mandamus compelling IRCC to decide on his family sponsorship PR application. The application had been pending for approximately four years, with over three years of inactivity. The Court found the delay unreasonable and inadequately justified.

Key Principle

Mandamus may issue where a public authority owes a duty to act and has unreasonably delayed performing it. In assessing delay, the Court considers whether the delay exceeds what the process reasonably requires, whether the applicant caused it, and whether the authority has provided a satisfactory justification.

Background

The applicant lived in Ghana with his spouse and four children. His Canadian-citizen brother, his sole living relative, sponsored the family under the Other Relative stream. The PR application was submitted in October 2019. Sponsor eligibility was approved, and medical, biometric, and family information requirements were completed. Despite repeated status inquiries, the file remained inactive for more than three years.

Court Findings

• Mandamus Requirements Were Essentially Undisputed

The Court reviewed the established mandamus criteria, including a public duty, clear right to performance, absence of another adequate remedy, practical value, no equitable bar, and a favourable balance of convenience. The parties disputed only whether the processing delay was unreasonable, making delay the determinative issue.

• Delay Exceeded the Nature of the Process

There was no published service standard, processing goal, or average processing time for the Other Relative stream. However, the Respondent provided no evidence explaining why this category reasonably required approximately four years. Given the lengthy inactivity and lack of information about additional processing needs, the Court found the delay longer than the process required.

• Applicant Did Not Cause the Delay

The parties agreed that neither the applicant nor his counsel caused the delay. The applicant complied with requests, and his family completed medical examinations and biometrics. His repeated status inquiries demonstrated efforts to advance the application rather than any contribution to the inactivity.

• Other Family-Class Timelines Had Contextual Relevance

The Court accepted that the 12-month service standard for overseas spouses and dependent children did not strictly govern this Other Relative sponsorship. Still, it was not wholly irrelevant because the processing involved similar requirements. In the absence of a specific benchmark for this stream, it provided context for assessing reasonableness.

• COVID-19 Did Not Adequately Justify the Delay

The Respondent relied on pandemic-related shutdowns and overseas processing disruptions. The Court accepted that COVID-19 caused delays, but a general reference to the pandemic could not justify more than three years of inactivity. Processing had resumed and institutions had adapted, yet no case-specific explanation showed why this file remained untouched.

• A Fixed Decision Deadline Was Appropriate

The applicant requested a decision within 30 days but indicated that any short fixed period would prevent further inactivity. Given the prolonged delay and lack of movement, the Court concluded that mandamus should include a concrete deadline and ordered IRCC to render a final decision within 90 days.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and issued mandamus requiring a final decision on the family sponsorship PR application within 90 days of the Court’s order. No serious question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Asiedu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1523 (CanLII)