In Samiei v. Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1090, the Federal Court dismissed an
application seeking an order of mandamus compelling IRCC to decide the
Applicant’s study permit application. The Applicant argued that the
approximately 15-month delay was unreasonable because study permit applications
were expected to be processed within weeks. The Court found that the Applicant
had failed to provide evidence establishing the applicable IRCC processing
standard and that IRCC had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay,
including ongoing background and security checks.
Background
The Applicant, a citizen of Iran,
applied for a study permit and sought an order requiring IRCC to make a
decision on his application. Approximately 15 months had passed since the
application was submitted. The Applicant argued that this delay was unreasonable
when compared with IRCC’s processing timelines.
The record showed that on April
30, 2025, IRCC requested the Applicant’s military records. He responded on May
14, 2025. IRCC subsequently continued processing the application, including
background and security screening. The Applicant did not provide any reply
submissions challenging the Respondent’s explanation for the delay.
Key Principle
To obtain mandamus, an
applicant bears the burden of satisfying the established eight-part test from Apotex.
For delay cases, the applicant must demonstrate that the delay is longer than
the nature of the process requires, that the applicant is not responsible for
the delay, and that the responsible authority has not provided a satisfactory
justification.
IRCC processing timelines may be
relevant when determining whether a delay is unreasonable, but they are not
determinative. The applicant must place appropriate evidence before the
Court concerning the applicable service standard because IRCC processing times
change over time.
Court Findings
• The Applicant Failed to
Establish the Applicable Processing Standard
The Court found that the
Applicant had not provided evidence of the IRCC service standard applicable to
his study permit application. Because processing timelines vary over time, the
Court could not determine whether the 15-month delay was unreasonable without
evidence establishing the relevant standard.
• IRCC Provided a Reasonable
Explanation for the Delay
The Court accepted that the
record contained evidence showing IRCC had requested and reviewed the
Applicant’s military records and that the application remained subject to
background and security screening. This provided a reasonable explanation for
at least part of the processing delay.
• IRCC Had Not Refused to
Perform Its Duty
The Court also rejected the
argument that IRCC had failed to perform its duty. The evidence showed that
IRCC was actively processing the application, requesting updated information,
and conducting background checks.
• Balance of Convenience Did
Not Favour Mandamus
Because the Applicant failed to
establish unreasonable delay and IRCC had provided a reasonable justification,
the balance of convenience did not favour granting mandamus.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed
the application for judicial review and the request for mandamus. No costs
were awarded.
Significance: This case confirms that a lengthy processing period, by itself, does not establish
entitlement to mandamus. Applicants challenging immigration processing delays
should provide evidence of the applicable IRCC processing standard and
address any documented explanation for the delay, particularly where the
application remains subject to security or background screening.
Case
Citation:
Samiei v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1090 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
