CEC PR Mandamus Granted Over Processing Delay

The Federal Court granted CEC PR mandamus relief after finding that IRCC unreasonably delayed processing Sarah Javadi’s Canadian Experience Class permanent residence application. Justice Brouwer ordered processing to be completed within 30 days of the October 30, 2026 judgment and awarded $2,000 in costs.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Javadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1342, Court file IMM-6693-25.
• Decision date & judge: October 30, 2026, Mr. Justice Brouwer.
• Issue: The applicant sought mandamus over IRCC’s delay in processing her Canadian Experience Class permanent residence application.
• Outcome: Judicial review was allowed; the Court ordered processing completed within 30 days, remained seized for further directions if needed, and awarded $2,000 in costs.

Application remained undecided after extended delay

Sarah Javadi, an Iranian citizen residing in Canada on an employment permit, applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class on August 26, 2023. Her spouse, Abbas Zirakjou, was included as a dependent and held a study permit.

IRCC acknowledged the application the following day. The Court noted that IRCC’s published service standard at the time was 180 days and its dynamic average processing time was seven months.

By the hearing, the couple had waited more than 1,020 days. The GCMS notes indicated on November 30, 2026 that they met the minimum CEC requirements. The Court found that, after security information was marked complete and submitted in early January 2024, no substantive work occurred on the file for an extended period.

IRCC later requested military-service information concerning Mr. Zirakjou that had previously been provided. After the applicant promptly responded again, GCMS notes eventually recorded that the spouse’s security screening had returned favourable and security had passed on April 20, 2026. The permanent residence application nevertheless remained outstanding at the hearing.

Security screening did not explain this delay

The Minister argued that the need for security screening justified the delay. The Court accepted that security screening is important, but found that general assertions about it did not explain the delay in this particular application.

Justice Brouwer held that the Minister had not provided information showing that something specific to the applicants required processing to take drastically longer than the CEC service standard or dynamic average. The Court found that the processing time was, on its face, longer than required for this immigration category.

The Court also rejected the Minister’s balance-of-convenience argument. It found no evidence that granting mandamus would negatively affect immigration-system integrity or the Minister’s ability to properly investigate and process the application.

Although the applicants submitted evidence of hardship and prejudice, the Court noted that applicants do not have to establish prejudice to succeed in a mandamus application.

Court ordered completion within 30 days

The applicant asked for a 30-day deadline, while the Minister proposed 90 days. The Court noted that about four and a half months had passed since the hearing, giving IRCC a further 139 days to complete processing.

Assuming no decision had yet been made, Justice Brouwer ordered that processing be completed within 30 days of the judgment. The Court remained seized, meaning the parties could seek further direction if needed.

The Court also found that the unreasonable delay was a special reason supporting a costs award. It declined the applicant’s request for $10,000 and awarded all-inclusive lump-sum costs of $2,000.

What the decision means

This decision concerns the circumstances of this CEC permanent residence application and does not grant permanent residence. It requires IRCC to complete processing within the timeline set by the Court.

For immigration practice, the judgment shows that a reference to security screening alone may not justify a prolonged delay where the record does not explain why screening in the individual case requires that length of time. The decision turns on its record and is not a general direction requiring IRCC to change its processing policies.

Source: Federal Court Decisions