Mandamus Granted for Citizenship Application Delay

The Federal Court granted mandamus for a citizenship application delay and ordered IRCC to decide Hasan Huseyin Kaba’s citizenship application within 60 days of November 10, 2026. The Court found the approximately 37-month processing period, driven by unresolved security screening, was unreasonable and inadequately explained.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Kaba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1378, Court file T-1486-25.
• Decision date & judge: November 10, 2026, by Justice Giuseppina D’Agostino.
• Issue: Whether IRCC’s delay in deciding a Canadian citizenship application justified a writ of mandamus.
• Outcome: The judicial review was granted; IRCC must decide the citizenship application within 60 days, with no costs awarded.

Citizenship application remained pending for about 37 months

Kaba, a citizen of Türkiye and Canadian permanent resident, submitted his citizenship application on October 4, 2023. IRCC began security screening with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service on October 17, 2023.

IRCC recorded in January 2024 that Kaba had passed the language and residence assessments and that a name search disclosed no adverse information. The prohibitions assessment remained outstanding pending security-screening results.

The Court noted that the published average processing time when the application was submitted was 10 months. By the date of judgment, the application had been in process for about 37 months—roughly 27 months beyond that average.

Kaba’s Member of Parliament made 10 inquiries between July 2024 and August 2026. The responses said security screening was ongoing and provided no estimated completion date.

Court found the delay unreasonable

Justice D’Agostino assessed the delay using the three-part test for unreasonable delay: whether it exceeded what the process required, whether the applicant caused it, and whether the responsible authority provided a satisfactory justification.

The Court accepted that published processing times are not binding deadlines. However, the substantial difference between the stated average and the actual processing period supported a preliminary finding that the delay was excessive.

The record did not show that Kaba caused the delay. He completed the required assessments, provided biometrics and repeatedly requested updates.

IRCC argued that security screening is an important safeguard and can depend on partner agencies. The Court agreed with those general principles, but found that IRCC had not identified a case-specific complexity, outstanding inquiry or other explanation for why the screening had remained pending for more than three years.

Administrative entries in the Global Case Management System in May and November 2025 did not meaningfully explain the duration of the screening or show reasonable diligence, the Court held.

Why the Court ordered a decision

The Court found that the unreasonable and inadequately justified delay amounted to an implied refusal to act, giving Kaba a prima facie entitlement to mandamus.

IRCC submitted that Kaba had not shown significant prejudice and that an order could move him ahead of other applicants. The Court held that significant prejudice is not a separate requirement for mandamus based on unreasonable delay, although prejudice remains relevant to the balance of convenience.

Kaba relied on evidence of sleep difficulties and anxiety, as well as the effect of delayed citizenship on travel and future planning. The Court found this evidence offered limited support for substantial prejudice, but remained relevant.

More importantly, the Court found that IRCC had not shown that requiring a decision would cause disproportionate administrative consequences or compromise public safety. It concluded that the balance of convenience favoured relief.

IRCC has 60 days to decide

Kaba requested a 30-day deadline. Justice D’Agostino instead ordered IRCC to render a decision as soon as possible, but no later than 60 days from the judgment date.

The order requires a decision on the citizenship application; it does not grant Canadian citizenship. The Court also declined to award costs, finding that the high threshold of “special reasons” had not been met.

Source: Federal Court Decisions