Bidgoly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 283 : Express Entry PR Application – Mandamus Granted After Unexplained Three-and-a-Half-Year Delay

The Federal Court reviewed Siavash Mahmoudian Bidgoly’s request for mandamus compelling IRCC to decide his Express Entry PR application. The application had been pending for more than three and a half years, with IRCC attributing the delay to security screening and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court found the delay unreasonable and granted mandamus.

Key Principle

Mandamus may issue where an immigration authority has a legal duty to act, the applicant has done everything required, the delay is prima facie longer than the process ordinarily requires, the applicant did not cause the delay, and the government provides no satisfactory justification. General references to security screening or the pandemic are insufficient without evidence explaining their effect on the particular application.

Background

The applicant submitted his Express Entry PR application in July 2018 after receiving an invitation to apply. The application was found complete, criminality was assessed, and he met the minimum Federal Skilled Worker requirements. Security screening remained outstanding. He repeatedly contacted IRCC and Members of Parliament but was repeatedly told processing remained ongoing without resolution.

Court Findings

• IRCC Owed a Duty to Process the Application

The Court found that IRCC had a legal duty to process the PR application, although not to approve it. The applicant had submitted the application, paid the fees, responded promptly to requests, and repeatedly sought updates. Nothing further was required from him.

• Delay Was Prima Facie Excessive

IRCC’s published Express Entry processing time was approximately six months. By judicial review, the application had been outstanding for over three and a half years. Although security screening can justify longer processing, the record contained no evidence about normal screening timelines or why this file required such an extraordinary period.

• Security Screening Was Not Adequately Explained

The Respondent relied on an ongoing security assessment but offered only a blanket assertion that it remained incomplete. No evidence identified the nature, complexity, or progress of the security concerns. An unsupported claim that mandamus would interfere with an important security investigation could not justify the prolonged delay.

• Pandemic Explanation Was Also Insufficient

The Court accepted that the pandemic could affect immigration processing in an appropriate factual context. However, the application had already been delayed about 19 months by March 2020. The Respondent provided no evidence explaining how the pandemic specifically affected this application or its security screening.

• No Adequate Alternative Remedy Existed

The applicant had no meaningful remedy other than continuing to wait. Mandamus would have practical value by requiring IRCC to move the application toward completion. The Court also rejected the queue-jumping concern because there was no evidence showing where his file stood relative to comparable applicants.

• Balance of Convenience Favoured the Applicant

The unexplained delay outweighed the government’s generalized reliance on security and pandemic concerns. The Court recognized the importance of security screening and public protection, but those concerns required evidentiary support. Without such evidence, the balance of convenience favoured intervention.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and ordered IRCC to process the Express Entry PR application within 90 days. No question was certified and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Bidgoly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 283 (CanLII)