Pakatchian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 759 : Mandamus Refused Where Security Screening and Outstanding PFL Response Justified Prolonged Processing Delay

The Federal Court dismissed an application for mandamus seeking an order compelling IRCC to process a long-pending study permit application. The Applicant argued that the approximately four-year delay was unreasonable and that IRCC had breached his legitimate expectations based on published processing times. The Court found that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the Apotex requirements for mandamus, particularly because the application remained subject to security screening and the Applicant had not responded to a procedural fairness letter (PFL) addressing serious national security concerns. Pasted text

Key Principle

IRCC processing times do not create a legal entitlement to a decision within the posted timeframe. Where an application requires security screening, the reasonableness of the delay is assessed on the particular facts, and there is no uniform time limit applicable to security-related processing. An applicant seeking mandamus must establish both a clear public legal duty to act and a clear right to performance of that duty. An outstanding PFL response may provide a reasonable justification for continued processing and defeat a claim of unreasonable delay. Pasted text

Background

The Applicant, an Iranian citizen, filed an application in February 2022 relating to doctoral studies in aerospace engineering at Carleton University. IRCC requested additional information and the application was subsequently referred for security screening. The Applicant later sought an order requiring IRCC to make a decision within five days, arguing that the delay was excessive compared with IRCC’s published processing estimates. Pasted text

In February 2026, IRCC issued a PFL raising concerns about the Applicant’s work as an axial compressor design engineer, his employer’s designation under the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Regulations, and his prior collaboration with an aerospace engineering professor whose work involved military applications. IRCC expressed concerns under s 34(1)(d) of the IRPA regarding dual-use technology and potential implications for Canada’s national security. The Applicant was given 30 days to respond but did not respond to the PFL or to a subsequent settlement offer. Pasted text

Court Findings

• Mandamus requirements not met: Applying the Apotex framework, the Court found that the Applicant failed to establish both the existence of a clearly defined public legal duty to decide within the requested timeframe and a clear right to performance of that duty. Pasted text

• Security screening justified the delay: The application had been referred for security screening in April 2022. The Court found that the delay was reasonable in the circumstances because security screening was required and the record also involved authorized redactions under s 87 of the IRPA. Published processing estimates did not include the time required for security clearances. Pasted text

• Failure to respond to PFL was significant: The Court considered it fatal that the Applicant had not responded to the PFL despite arguing that the expiry of the response period required IRCC to make a decision. The PFL was intended to allow the Applicant to address specific security concerns and provide information necessary for the assessment. Pasted text

• No legitimate expectation from processing times: IRCC’s published processing times are non-binding estimates concerning average applications. They do not constitute clear, unambiguous and unqualified representations giving an individual applicant a legal entitlement to a decision within that period. Pasted text

Outcome

The application for mandamus and declaratory relief was dismissed. The Court found no implied refusal to act and no unreasonable delay in the circumstances. No costs were awarded, and the Court noted that damages or monetary compensation are not available as remedies for judicial review under s 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act. Pasted text.

Case Citation:

Pakatchian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 759 (CanLII)