Saravanabavanathan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 564 : Mandamus Issued After IRCC Failed to Decide Spousal Sponsorship Application for More Than Five Years

The Federal Court granted an application for mandamus after finding that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) had unreasonably delayed processing a spousal sponsorship application for more than five years. The Canadian sponsor submitted the permanent residence application for her husband in January 2019, and although the applicants promptly complied with every request for medical examinations, biometrics, and additional documentation, no final decision had been made. The Ministers argued that the delay resulted from security screening, the applicant’s previous asylum claim in the United Kingdom, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court rejected these explanations, concluding that the delay was unreasonable and ordering IRCC to render a decision within 90 days.

Key Principle

Mandamus is available where immigration authorities unreasonably delay making a decision that they are legally required to make. Although security screening and complex admissibility assessments may justify some delay, generalized references to security concerns, processing backlogs, or the COVID-19 pandemic are insufficient. Where applicants have fulfilled all processing requirements and the government cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for prolonged inactivity, the Federal Court may compel IRCC to finalize the application within a specified timeframe.

Background

The applicants married in Sri Lanka in 2018, and the Canadian spouse submitted a spousal sponsorship application in January 2019. IRCC approved the sponsor’s eligibility and transferred the permanent residence application to the Colombo Visa Office. The principal applicant promptly completed biometrics, medical examinations, and submitted updated background declarations whenever requested. Because he had previously made an unsuccessful asylum claim in the United Kingdom, IRCC sought additional documentation regarding that claim, which was also provided without delay. Despite repeated follow-up inquiries over several years, the application remained pending with little indication that meaningful processing was occurring.

Court Findings

• The Processing Delay Was Unreasonable

The Court found that the application had remained outstanding for over 60 months, while the average processing time for overseas spousal sponsorship applications was approximately 16 months. Although published processing times are not binding service standards, they provide an important benchmark in determining whether a delay is prima facie unreasonable. The applicants were not responsible for any portion of the delay, having responded promptly to every request from IRCC.

• General Security Concerns and COVID-19 Were Not Adequate Justifications

The Court accepted that security screening is an important component of immigration processing but held that generalized assertions about pending security assessments cannot justify prolonged delays. Likewise, while the COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly disrupted immigration processing, it could not reasonably explain a delay extending well beyond the resumption of normal government operations. The Court found no evidence of any specific or unusually complex security concern that warranted the continued delay.

• Mandamus Was the Appropriate Remedy

The Court rejected the Minister’s argument that granting mandamus would allow the applicants to “jump the queue.” Instead, the evidence suggested that the application had effectively stalled, with little or no processing activity for an extended period. Given the absence of any equitable bar and the significant hardship caused by years of separation, the balance of convenience strongly favoured granting relief.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and issued an order of mandamus directing IRCC to render a decision on the spousal sponsorship application within 90 days, subject to any justified request for an extension. The decision reinforces that while immigration authorities are entitled to conduct thorough security and admissibility assessments, they must process applications within a reasonable period and cannot rely on generalized explanations to justify years of administrative delay.

Case Citation:

Saravanabavanathan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 564 (CanLII)