. . . My concern is, why that was delayed for more than 10 months after the application is submitted. Now what is the use of the interview if during the interview and after going through my file no concerns and no comments were asked.
In an earlier post, only in a passing manner did I mention the
questions of reasonableness and fair procedure. Depending on the facts, these are questions which can be asked in a particular case. Perhaps in your case.
The procedure for doing so is by way of a demand to act on the application followed by an application to the Federal Court for a writ of mandamus. There are persuasive reasons why I did not elaborate, why I did not pursue this tangent. Two reasons loom particularly large:
One is the rather low probability of success.
The other is that it is complicated, it demands wandering far into the weeds, and tends to be far more a distraction than helpful.
DEMAND and MANDAMUS:
IRCC has an obligation to process a citizenship application and to be
REASONABLE in doing so, AND in particular to employ
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.
The procedure for challenging IRCC actions which are
NOT REASONABLE, which violate a Canadian's right to
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, is to do so by way of a demand to act on the application followed, if IRCC does not appropriately act, by an application to the Federal Court for a writ of mandamus.
Since I do NOT know WHY IRCC has proceeded the way it has in your particular case, I cannot begin to assess whether or not its actions are reasonable or unreasonable, or otherwise a breach of your right to procedural fairness. Neither do you. Neither would a lawyer UNLESS and UNTIL actually making an application for a Writ of Mandamus and obtaining information from IRCC attendant what is comparable (in other proceedings) to discovery. (Given this, it would probably be very difficult to find a lawyer willing to pursue this, except a lawyer willing to do so just to take your money; most lawyers like to know, up front, there is at least a fair shot at winning.)
Technically an individual can pursue mandamus without a lawyer. Practically, even most lawyers are not particularly adept in pursuing mandamus, and for pro se litigants it is especially difficult with potentially being charged paying the government's costs and attorney fees, which can be shockingly huge when the plaintiff loses (I have said "when" deliberately, not "if," since in this scenario the probability of losing is very high, which in itself tends to dramatically increase the risk of being charged with the government's costs and fees).
But nonetheless, IRCC has an affirmative duty to be REASONABLE in the actions it takes on a citizenship application. IRCC has an affirmative duty to not engage in actions which violate an individual's right to PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS. And, Canada being a nation governed by the rule of law, there is a remedy when a government agency fails to do what it has a duty to do. In such a case a Federal Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering the agency to do what the agency has a clear duty to do.
The agency (IRCC in this case, or technically the "Minister" in this case) is entitled to notice and an opportunity to perform its duty BEFORE any application for mandamus is made. Thus, the first step in this process is to make a PROPER DEMAND to the Minister that IRCC perform what it has a clear duty to perform. This is actually the trickiest part of the Mandamus procedure. I have been told by a former Judicial clerk (a lawyer of course) that MOST applications for Mandamus FAIL due to this, and I am talking about most applications by LAWYERS.
Articulating precisely what it is that IRCC (the Minister) has a clear duty to do in a particular case is NOT at all easy. The general duty, to be REASONABLE, to not breach a person's right to PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, is merely a trite statement of principle. What specific action the agency has a clear duty to take is far more elusive.
Unfortunately, the amount of time it takes to process an application does not establish the unreasonableness of failing to make a decision UNLESS there is a time period prescribed by law. There is NONE governing the processing of a citizenship application. Even very long delays in processing do NOT constitute a breach of an individual applicant's right to procedural fairness.
The above barely scratches the surface. Mandamus is as much into the weeds as just about any judicial remedy can be.
A RELATIVELY PRACTICAL ASPECT OF THIS: A CAREFULLY COMPOSED DEMAND
The applicant can send a formal demand to IRCC. Or, a lawyer can do so on behalf of an applicant. This can be phrased in terms of a REQUEST which nonetheless constitutes a demand. Historically there have been more than a few reported instances in which this has, at least apparently, succeeded in motivating IRCC to proceed with an application sooner than it otherwise would have. There is little or no downside. Worst case scenario is IRCC essentially ignores the request/demand, not even acknowledging it (which, also historically, seems to be the most common response when this is made by the applicant rather than a lawyer on behalf of the applicant, at least by CIC before the change to IRCC).
The difficulty, again, is in precisely articulating the request or demand sufficiently to meet mandamus requirements.
I rarely wander into Mandamus territory because it really is an EXCEPTIONAL remedy available only in very UNUSUAL circumstances, and the probability of success tends to be remote. Mandamus discussions tend to be a distraction. BUT, again, Canada is indeed a nation governed by the rule of law, and there is a remedy when a government body fails to do what it has a duty to do, including processing an application in a manner which is REASONABLE and does NOT violate an individual's right to PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.
And, overall, the option of waiting tends to be the more prudent approach . . . and often the outcome in a successful mandamus action is not really all that much sooner, if it is sooner, than it would have been just waiting. (Litigation tends to take time.)
Final caveat: what is "reasonable" typically involves a very, very broad range of possible actions or decisions. Many confuse what is the "reasonable" thing to do, from their perspective, as defining any other action or decision to be unreasonable. Not the way it works. Very different outcomes or actions can both be "reasonable."
