Much of what is addressed below is already well known by many here, too well known, but warrants articulating out loud (so to say), in an effort to read the landscape and navigate the way forward. Caveat: for those individuals bogged down in the more difficult types of non-routine processing, in their particular cases, there does not appear to be any good solutions other than to keep after it and slog it out, getting the best legal advice and assistance you can find and afford. And even for the others, those for whom a lawyer's help is not needed, the way forward tends to likewise require staying after it and continuing to slog it out.
Some contextual observations:
The failure of IRCC to adequately respond to the situations created by and collateral to the Covid global pandemic has been blatantly dismal, resulting in grossly excessive processing delays that have had an unacceptably unjust impact on millions of IRCC clients, including hundreds of thousands of clients applying for citizenship. While things appear to be improving, more so for citizenship applicants than other IRCC clients (especially not so well for Foreign Nationals making applications to obtain status in Canada, both temporary and permanent), progress has been slow and continues to lag well behind what is reasonable.
Obtaining recourse is a problem. Apart from political pressure, which so far appears to wallow at best (which, however, is no reason to abate such efforts, let alone give up), and otherwise quickly wane soon after occasional media attention invites some outrage (too often countered by an all-too-expected anti-immigration backlash), recourse tends to be limited to individual action, IRCC clients basically left to fend for themselves. Without an avenue to engage in group actions, like in other contexts where a "
class action" lawsuit would be available, this tends to leave the individual client in a
David versus Goliath scenario, except without even a slingshot and at least one hand tied behind their back.
HOWEVER, some of the comments here suggest that even the primary avenue of recourse for applicants who are victims of abusive delays, beyond the scope of the systemic delays affecting applications across the board, is currently foreclosed. Generally I will not suggest skepticism toward what reputable lawyers say, but I am extremely skeptical that there is any system-wide foreclosure of Mandamus relief. And even if relief via Mandamus is somehow currently stalled, that would NOT be a decision by IRCC.
In particular, anyone here who has a case warranting Mandamus relief (no more than a small number, since just a lengthy delay does not in-itself constitute grounds for Mandamus relief) should NOT be dissuaded from pursuing that by the comments here. At the least, this is something to consult with a competent, experienced lawyer about. It is expensive. But in a case where there are grounds for Mandamus, and one can afford it, this avenue for relief is most likely still open.
Thus, just for clarification regarding applications for Mandamus:
". . . there were already more than 400 Mandamus applications filed and IRCC only reacted to a few of them."
IRCC cannot decline or refuse to respond to an application for a Writ of Mandamus, which is in effect a lawsuit filed in the Federal Court against the Minister of IRCC. That is, the timeline for IRCC to respond to an application for Mandamus is dictated by the Federal Court, not IRCC, and is subject to the rules of procedure governing actions in the Federal Court.
"Regarding the current Mandamus applications filed by others, lawyers informed that IRCC is no longer being pressured to act on your application given the huge backlog (approaching three million as we speak)."
There are NOT three million citizenship applications pending, let alone in backlog. Estimates vary, but it is clear there are significantly fewer than a half million total citizenship applications pending. IRCC claims that more than two-thirds of those pending are "
within service standards." For the vast majority of those suffering the excessive delays due to the general failure of IRCC to appropriately adapt to conditions in the last two and a half years, it is highly unlikely that Mandamus is an appropriate remedy at this time.
Which leaves a fairly small number of cases in which, as the courts often say, there is an unreasonable and undue delay that can be characterized as an "
implied refusal" to process the application. For some of these cases a Writ of Mandamus may be appropriate and available. And, again, IRCC cannot unilaterally decline or refuse to respond when a proper application for Mandamus is filed in the Federal Court.
Examples of a couple cases in which Mandamus was granted relatively recently, including one citizenship case:
-- Sharafaldin v. Canada, 2022 FC 768,
https://canlii.ca/t/jpgxw . . . (bad news, Sharafaldin suffered a delay of more than twenty years; good news, he was awarded costs in the amount of $65,000 . . . for this order see Sharafaldin v. Canada, 2022 FC 997,
https://canlii.ca/t/jqf7b )
-- Oladele v. Canada, 2022 FC 1161,
https://canlii.ca/t/jr95m . . . not a citizenship case, but an order of mandamus was issued just this August requiring IRCC to render a final decision on an application for PR
. . . it warrants emphasizing that the length of delay is just one factor, and typically not the most important factor, in determining if and when Mandamus relief is appropriate. Mandamus in the context of a citizenship application is very much an individually specific thing. PRs whose applications have triggered background security concerns and related investigations tend to get bogged down the longest, and those kinds of cases can take an incredibly long time before Mandamus is a practical recourse. Not usually as long as it took for Sharafaldin, but if one chases down the cited case links and referenced cases, more than a few taking five, six, eight, and nine or more years are easily found. That's almost always about the particular individual and particular background concerns in regards to that individual. So those cases should not be considered the measuring standard . . . each Mandamus case stands on its own.
But of course the latter leaves each to fend for themselves, with the aid of lawyers to the extent they can afford the lawyers. And for now offers little if any relief for the vast majority of bogged down and delayed applications which do not qualify for Mandamus relief . . . all of which, I might have already mentioned, tends to leave the majority of individual clients in a
David versus Goliath scenario, except without even a slingshot and at least one hand tied behind their back.
So, as feeble as the political campaign tends to so far be, and it now being two years past when even the more optimistic among us (like me I guess, noting that at the time I did not think that was an optimistic expectation -- I missed the mark on this one) expected IRCC to have made adjustments in order to keep the process working and to perform their legislative mandates, for many thousands it still mostly comes down to staying after it and continuing to slog it out, individually.
