Ur Rehman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 388 : Mandamus in Spousal Sponsorship: Security Screening Delay Not Justified for the Entire Processing Period

The Federal Court considered whether IRCC’s delay in processing a permanent residence application under the spousal sponsorship category justified a writ of mandamus. The Court found that IRCC had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the entire period of delay, particularly because there had been a two-year period without documented follow-up with partner agencies. However, the application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to establish significant prejudice arising from the delay.

Key Principle

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring satisfaction of all the Apotex factors. Where mandamus is sought because of processing delay, the Applicant must establish that the delay is prima facie longer than the process reasonably requires, that the Applicant was not responsible for the delay, and that IRCC has not provided a satisfactory justification. In addition, the Applicant must demonstrate significant prejudice resulting from the unacceptable delay.

A general reference to ongoing security screening will not necessarily justify prolonged delay. The evidence must explain the delay in its entirety.

Background

The Applicant, a United States citizen, filed a spousal sponsorship permanent residence application in May 2019. After correspondence and requests for additional documentation, the final documentation requested by IRCC was provided on December 27, 2021. In November 2021, IRCC transferred the application to the New York visa office for further eligibility and admissibility review.

GCMS notes from January 2022 indicated that comprehensive screening was required, including consideration of potential inadmissibility under section 37 of IRPA, relating to organized criminality. IRCC made two requests for updates from partner agencies in 2022, but there was no documented follow-up from July 6, 2022 until April 4, 2024, after the mandamus application had commenced.

Court Findings

• Security screening did not justify the entire delay: The Court recognized that, unlike cases involving merely a “bald” assertion of security screening, there was some evidence concerning the nature of the security concern and IRCC’s communications with partner agencies. Nevertheless, IRCC provided no affidavit evidence from an individual with actual knowledge explaining the processing history. More importantly, there was no evidence of follow-up for approximately two years. The Court therefore was not satisfied that IRCC had reasonably justified the entire period of delay.

• Significant prejudice is an independent requirement: Despite finding deficiencies in IRCC’s explanation, the Court held that the Applicant had not demonstrated significant prejudice. The Applicant merely stated that the delay and uncertainty prevented him from making important decisions concerning his life, family and business. The Court found these assertions too vague and unsupported by evidence.

• General hardship was insufficient: Although the Court acknowledged that waiting for a pending immigration application can cause disruption and hardship, such general consequences do not automatically establish entitlement to mandamus. The Applicant provided no evidence regarding separation from his wife or specific effects on his business or life decisions.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application without prejudice, meaning the Applicant remained entitled to bring another mandamus application if circumstances later justified it. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Ur Rehman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 388 (CanLII)