The
Federal Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling IRCC to finalize a spousal
sponsorship application that had remained pending for nearly seven years. The
Court found that the delay was unreasonable and that IRCC failed to provide
sufficient evidence explaining why prolonged security screening justified the
extraordinary processing time.
Key
Principle
The
decision confirms that security screening alone does not automatically
justify prolonged delays in immigration processing. Where IRCC relies on
security concerns to explain years of inactivity, it must provide evidence of
the specific steps taken and why the delay is necessary. Generic references to
ongoing security screening are insufficient.
Background
Ahmed
Sami Omar Alnuaimi, an Iraqi citizen, applied for permanent residence through
the overseas spousal sponsorship stream in April 2019. His wife is a Canadian
citizen and their two children were born in Canada. Despite completing the
initial stages of processing—including sponsorship approval, medical
examinations, and biometrics—little progress occurred after 2019. For most of
the following six years, Mr. Alnuaimi remained separated from his wife and
children. Numerous requests for updates by his spouse and Member of Parliament
resulted only in generic responses indicating that background checks were
ongoing.
Court
Findings
Justice
Sadrehashemi found that the delay was prima facie unreasonable. Family-class
sponsorship applications are intended to receive priority processing, and
IRCC’s own service standard is approximately 12 months. In contrast, Mr.
Alnuaimi’s application remained unresolved for nearly seven years. The Court
noted lengthy periods of inactivity in the GCMS notes, including years with
little or no documented action.
IRCC
argued that the delay was justified because the application was undergoing
comprehensive security screening. The Court rejected this explanation, finding
that the Minister relied largely on generic references to security screening
without providing evidence about the specific nature of the security concerns,
the steps being taken, or why the screening required such an extended period.
The Court emphasized that security screening cannot serve as a blanket
justification for delay without supporting evidence demonstrating what actually
occurred in the individual case.
The
Court further observed that despite repeated requests from the applicant and
his spouse, IRCC failed to provide meaningful information regarding the cause
of the delay. An interview arranged shortly before the mandamus hearing did not
cure the years of unexplained inactivity, nor did it provide assurance that a
decision would soon be rendered.
Costs
Award
The
Court also found “special reasons” to award costs, which is uncommon in
immigration proceedings. The nearly seven-year delay, repeated unanswered
requests for information, prolonged family separation, and IRCC’s failure to
provide evidence justifying the delay met the high threshold required for a
costs award. The Court ordered the Minister to pay the applicant $2,000 in
costs.
Outcome
The
Federal Court granted the application, issued a writ of mandamus requiring IRCC
to make a final decision within 90 days, awarded the applicant $2,000 in costs,
and remained seized of the matter to address any compliance issues.
Case Citation:
Alnuaimi v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2026 FC 647 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
