My application is Non-routine can i do a writ of mandamus ?
I don't know if @dpenabill will have anything further to add because the OP has already contributed thoughts and advise in one of the posts linked above.
Short answer, and it is a rather sure answer, and it has almost certainly been said before: UNLESS a LAWYER, after fully reviewing the case, recommends pursuing a Writ of Mandamus and will represent the applicant in doing so, the odds of successfully seeking a Writ of Mandamus are near ZERO.
There is no shortcut. There is no inexpensive alternative (none that is realistic anyway). To find out if pursuing an application for a Writ of Mandamus is at all worthwhile, an applicant needs to HIRE a LAWYER, recognizing that ONLY a LAWYER who fully reviews the case, in depth, can offer a relatively reliable opinion about the efficacy of pursuing the EXCEPTIONAL relief of Mandamus.
@bluesami -- your situation has been addressed at length in this forum. To learn more you need to PAY a competent lawyer to fully review your case.
Some basics:
"Routine" or "Non-routine" makes NO difference. "Non-routine" is NOT a status. It is a description. It has NO impact, ZERO impact, in or of itself. See comments in this topic posted nearly three years ago. All "non-routine" means is that the application has encountered some activity, some step, that is not part of what every application goes through. That is all it means.
The passage of time itself NEVER constitutes grounds for Mandamus in regards to a citizenship application. There is nothing in the law mandating action on a citizenship application within a certain amount of time. Long delays can be relevant, but that is a far, far more complicated subject. Leading to . . .
Some longer observations:
A lot has been discussed in regards to this situation. At the risk of having said before some or much of what is below, I do not mean to rehash what has been said. This is more or less an outline.
Who, when, or why an applicant has a fair chance to make a SUCCESSFUL application for a Writ of Mandamus is a very complex subject. Making an application for Mandamus requires a lawyer, a good lawyer.
OK, sure,
technically, a non-lawyer can make the application. A blind man with palsy "
can" try to perform heart surgery. Not much point in making such an effort.
Moreover, in particular, again in the vein of recognizing that of course any applicant "
can" make an application for a Writ of Mandamus: Chances of doing so successfully tend to be VERY LOW, very low UNLESS a competent, experienced lawyer has done ALL of the following:
-- reviewed the case in detail
-- concluded that seeking Mandamus is a reasonable recourse
-- made a proper demand for action on the Minister, and if that does not result in action then
-- made the application for a Writ on behalf of the applicant
At the risk of being tediously repetitive, even an applicant with a solid case for Mandamus has near ZERO odds of making a successful application without a lawyer. Many lawyers fumble Mandamus actions because they are highly technical and because the description of Mandamus as an "EXCEPTIONAL" remedy is literally true, getting Mandamus relief is truly "EXCEPTIONAL."
There is good reason for that. Mandamus is only available to compel the Minister to do an act the law unequivocally, absolutely requires the Minister to do. Contrary to much forum whining, if and when officers at IRCC are aware that the law mandates they do a certain thing, that is what they will do. No need to get a Federal Court justice to order them to do it.
Sure, there are some occasions in which there may be a difference of opinion as to whether or not the Minister (through the department) must do a certain a thing, the Minister of the view that the action demanded is not one the law absolutely compels, but the situation is otherwise certain enough that a FC justice will conclude the Minister must do that thing even though the Minister thinks otherwise. After all, the Federal Courts do sometimes issue a Writ of Mandamus. Probably no need to use the fingers on more than one hand to count the number of times it happens per hundred THOUSAND citizenship applications.
Which is NOT to dismiss the Mandamus procedure entirely. It is a viable, appropriate procedure in SOME situations. We do not see what number of applications are suddenly advanced when a lawyer makes the demand of the Minister that is a prerequisite for making the Writ application to the courts. Good reason to suspect this procedure has a fair prospect of success (unless the applicant is represented by counsel willing to be a shill for nonsense, such as the former American lawyer Rudy Guliani) as long as a competent lawyer has reviewed the case and concluded there are grounds for Mandamus, grounds sufficient for the lawyer to put her name on the demand.
The real key to Mandamus is making a proper demand itself. Not easy. The demand must not only state the action the Minister is compelled by law to make, it must state the precise grounds and law with much specificity. That is, for example, it may very well be true that given all the facts in the case the Minister is obligated to grant citizenship, but unless the demand specifies why the law mandates this be done NOW, a demand that the Minister (that IRCC) grant citizenship can be properly ignored or outright dismissed.
This is not close to 1095. Thought it was close but dont know why they have issues with your residency days.
This alludes to a long term discussion in the forum about how much of a margin to have before applying.
I too do NOT know why IRCC might have questions about the number of days
@bluesami was actually physically present in Canada during the eligibility period. But I do know that if and when IRCC does have questions about the applicant's presence, 10 days more than the minimum is not much insurance . . . very little or next to no insurance against getting bogged down in delays due to RQ-related non-routine processing, and not much insurance against a negative outcome.
This is rehashing what I have commented often: a good margin is a MONTH . . . but applicants who can anticipate there may be any reason for IRCC to have questions about the number of days the applicant was actually physically present in Canada during the eligibility period, MORE than a MONTH would be a good idea. I say this, as I often have, recognizing that many forum participants claim a week to ten days is a good margin. We disagree.
Well, IMO, you can if you've been waiting for a long long time AND IRCC hasn't provided you with any information as to why there is no movement AND you've contacted your MP and the information that they provided also doesn't state the reason for the delay (a reason other than "We are waiting on clearance").
We are entering into the legal realm now so you should discuss this with an experienced immigration lawyer and see if this is a viable option for you.
Absolutely concur in the reference to consulting with an experienced immigration lawyer.
BEYOND THAT . . . NOT SURE, NOT AT ALL, WHAT the DELAY is about . . . assuming there is something actually delaying this application other than the run-of-the-mill reasons for applications encountering extra-slow processing.
If it is about the number of days present, the odds are high the applicant gets some specific RQ-related requests. If the applicant has not received such RQ-related requests, the odds are there is SOMETHING ELSE going on.
NOT SURE, not at all, this is relevant for
@bluesami . . . but REMEMBER that most refugees RISK losing protected person status if they travel to their home country EVEN after they become a PR. For most refugee-PRs, if they go to the home country that constitutes reavailment of home country protection and is grounds to terminate their protected person status . . . and if that happens, that automatically terminates the refugee-PR's PR status, and thus makes the PR NOT eligible for citizenship . . . AND for those refugee-PRs applying for citizenship who have traveled to the home country, the citizenship application appears to be one of the things that can trigger a reavailment investigation and this can lead to very, very, very long delays (seen some cases delayed MORE than a DECADE).
