I think IRCC has a strong reason if it is 2 years Due to Covid 19 but 3 years makes the case strong for the applicant.
Applicants waiting for more than 2 years interested in Mandamus with a firm as a group meet here !!!
- Thread starter luvtrump
- Start date
I agree with you about the difficulty of proving unreasonable delay IN COURT; but at the same time, I have no doubt that IRCC has dropped the ball in processing citizenship applications. We don't have access to all that has been going on inside IRCC, but we already have documents obtained through ATIP, and more documents will be available in the future. Reading the document, one would immediately realize the urgency and gravity of the situation within IRCC. They are basically imploring the management to approve the proposed plan and they warn about legal and other sorts of consequences.
Another way to look at it is through counterfactual scenarios. Look at Australi with a very similar covid timeline and pandemic exposure and the difference that exists between their process and IRCC's process. IRCC was caught off guard with the pandemic, that's ok, everybody was, but the problem was, they were so reluctant to make changes. I think they never thought things will take this long to go back to normal. I put the responsibility on the IRCC management and their lack of foresight. I think they could have done a much better job in adapting to the pandemic and they should be held accountable. and I question the intent of people who come to these threads and push the narrative that all this is expected and nothing is out of the ordinary considering covid. No this is not normal and permanent residents and citizens are within their right to be outraged by it.
I do agree that it's difficult proving it in court YET. But if I keep waiting another 6 months for my oath, and people who applied in late 2020 and early 2021 keep getting their citizenship, I am going to request mandamus.
In the meantime, I think the best way to deal with IRCC is to pressure them on social media.
For those who have the time, the resources, and are motivated, I applaud organizing to exercise political and social pressure. It has indeed been well past time for IRCC to have made the necessary adjustments to do what the law dictates, which is to process and grant citizenship to those qualified.
Likewise, for those willing to invest in pursuing legal recourse, which could be expensive, I encourage proactive engagement.
But realistic expectations are in the range of, as you otherwise advocate, putting "pressure" on IRCC. In effect, for the greater good, with no promise or even much prospect of getting to take the oath much if at all sooner individually.
As a general proposition I would not, not ordinarily, encourage litigation for which there is minimal prospect of getting relief from the court. Filing such lawsuits, even making demands, can be perilously close to engaging in frivolous litigation. Which generally is to be discouraged (for those who favour a rule of law system operating judiciously). Harassment is not something to be condoned let alone encouraged or applauded.
However, there are times when the remedies available in the judicial system fall short, and what tools, what mechanisms are available, can be employed to, again, put pressure on the system. There may be a fine line between engaging in frivolous litigation and legitimate activism, and getting good lawyers on board can itself be a challenge. Just the discovery process attendant formal litigation can help to uncover the facts and reveal problems which can be better addressed under, again, some "pressure."
Which is to say I do not discourage any citizenship applicant from pursuing recourse in mandamus. But they should go into the process with eyes open, recognizing that it is quite likely about the greater good, not so likely about getting to take the oath much if any sooner themselves but, rather, pushing IRCC toward improving processing timelines more broadly.
And of course some individuals may be encountering delays in their processing which are unreasonable, and for that there is recourse via the process for seeking a Writ of Mandamus. That process begins with a proper "demand," which is a prerequisite for pursuing mandamus in the courts. As has been mentioned here, it is common for IRCC to favourably respond to a demand without forcing the complainant to actually file a lawsuit . . . but this largely depends on a demand which makes the case, a demand which is supported by the law and the facts. And even that is very tricky.
It is not how long that matters all that much (in regards to establishing the elements of a cause of action for obtaining a writ of mandamus).
That's the underlying problem with mandamus in regards to this issue. Many will agree that the slow processing is unreasonable, but that does NOT make it actionable.
What additional factors and information are needed to make a case for mandamus, in regards to the lengthy citizenship application processing timeline, will depend a lot on the individual situation, and sorting one's way through that requires a lawyer.
NOTE: I favour going to lawyers for advice and assistance. But I am also realistic about what they offer. It is NOT easy to get what you pay for from lawyers. And that's about the best one can hope for, to get services approximating what you pay for. So, in regards to the "free consultation" some lawyers offer, be aware, in terms of real value, you are not likely to get any more than what you pay for. Nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.
To find out whether there is a good basis for proceeding with the process for pursuing mandamus, beginning with the demand letter, generally means paying for a consultation, paying enough for a lawyer to personally review the whole case in detail. Make no mistake, to do this effectively requires real effort, even if only in gathering and organizing the relevant information and documentation, in addition to paying the fees. For those whose interest is primarily playing loudmouth in the whiners' club, better to stick to the online stuff; going to court requires a real investment, real effort, and money. But rather often that is where things need to go to compel needed changes, to do the right thing. But only the serious need apply.
Hello
Plz someone guide me what should i do next. I am an outland applicant under FSW and stumbled upon this thread seeking to file writ of mandamus
AOR January 2019
SS in progress
Latest from CSIS is that they won’t share info
Plz someone guide me what should i do next. I am an outland applicant under FSW and stumbled upon this thread seeking to file writ of mandamus
AOR January 2019
SS in progress
Latest from CSIS is that they won’t share info
1 & 2: Forget about collective action. Most people on here are all talk and zero action. See the thread 'Collective action...', people have been whining and ranting for over a year but the majority are too cowardly to take any action (they aren't even willing to use their real names on petitions or for tweeting the IRCC). Your only option is to serve IRCC notice of your intent to file for Mandamus as an individual, through a lawyer.
3. To date I don't know of any case where an MP has been successful (or even willing) in getting IRCC to speed up the processing. Your best bet would be to go for a lawyer straight away once you've decided to apply for Mandamus.
4. Posts #2 and #4 have mentioned one Erin Roth (seems to be based out of BC). If your case is routine and you don't expect it to reach the hearing stage just hire any decent immigration/citizenship lawyer that will send the IRCC notice of your intention to petition for Mandamus.
Guys, I got some points to add too.
1. If you do not have an urgent need for a Canadien passport, just wait, don't waste your money. If you do, apply for urgent processing. The cases on this forum clearly demonstrate that, if legit and with enough proof, an urgent request will work and your application will be processed fast.
2. Mandamus should be filed after a relatively long wait (~3 years in current circumstances due to COVID).
3. If you go for mandamus, go until the very end. Do not stop when IRCC decides to call you for an oath, because it will simply be a quasi-expedited application. If IRCC was holding your application for so long for no reason, you have to ask for financial compensation from IRCC not only for your application but also for lawyer expenses and psychological distress during all this process. That's why a good lawyer is important here.
1. If you do not have an urgent need for a Canadien passport, just wait, don't waste your money. If you do, apply for urgent processing. The cases on this forum clearly demonstrate that, if legit and with enough proof, an urgent request will work and your application will be processed fast.
2. Mandamus should be filed after a relatively long wait (~3 years in current circumstances due to COVID).
3. If you go for mandamus, go until the very end. Do not stop when IRCC decides to call you for an oath, because it will simply be a quasi-expedited application. If IRCC was holding your application for so long for no reason, you have to ask for financial compensation from IRCC not only for your application but also for lawyer expenses and psychological distress during all this process. That's why a good lawyer is important here.
One highlighted Mandamus case in news with financial compensation will make IRcc sh in their pants .
Exactly! In the future, IRCC will think twice when they decided to hold a citizenship application for too long on their shelf...
3. There have been a few such cases. The judge deemed the issues to be moot if IRCC took action right before the hearing and the mandamus application was dismissed.
I’m quite sure it’s possible to do something if you try harder (not necessary via mandamus), especially if: a) you wait for more that 3 years for no reason and IRCC was silent to your inquires, b) you have a note from a psychiatrist about psychological distress or some illness caused by this (different people handle streets differently), c) your lawyer is a Canadien-American dual citizen (I believe pure Canadians lawyers will be scared to have a financial compensation case against Canadien government)…
Nobody said that it will be easy. But it is possible. One successful case like that will force IRCC to improve the process...
Obviously only a lawyer can actually say, but I believe the likelihood of any compensation is low, and very unlikely for any damages beyond actual out-of-pocket.
The whole point of mandamus is requesting an order to complete an action for which no other solution is feasible, i.e. that there is no way to 'compensate' the complainant other than actually completing the action requested. It's obviously a bit hard to argue that 'we need this order because there is no other option or solution that will solve our problem whatsoever' AND 'also compensate us with money.'
While I'm sure there are some circumstances in which punitive damages might be possible, no-one should go into requesting mandamus on the belief that it might pay-off in money.
Last edited:
In Regards to Deciding If and When to Pay a Lawyer Regarding Mandamus:
There is a whole lot of malarkey in much of what has been posted here (an understatement). I will not attempt to sort out what is informational versus nonsense (of which there is a lot here), except to reiterate that the length of time an application has been in process is at most a minor factor in regards to deciding if and when to seek mandamus. Indeed, for most applicants considering this, how much it will cost, and what they can afford, is a far more influential and important factor to consider. Whether or not their application is subject to a delay different from the mainstream of other applicants is a bigger, more significant factor than how long ago the application was made. And if so, WHY that is happening looms much, much larger.
The latter highlights a huge difference in WHO will actually be interested in pursuing mandamus. Some will be interested for activist reasons. Some others, a very SMALL NUMBER of others, will be interested in pursuing mandamus as an appropriate recourse in their specific case (with the objective of actually accelerating an outcome in their own case).
This topic is mostly (apart from the ranting, the diatribes, the distractions, the disruption) about the first group, those interested for activist reasons. For this group not much more needs to be said than "do it; just do it." There is a caveat, of course, a disclaimer, as there almost always is. Will get to that.
Who, in contrast, should consider seeing a lawyer about pursuing mandamus as an appropriate recourse in their specific case, for processing issues in their particular situation, with the objective of actually generating a decision, or at least accelerating an outcome in their own case, is a far more complicated subject. And ultimately, ONLY a good, reputable, experienced lawyer will be able to offer reliable information for those in this group. The caveat here, however, is actually quite simple: how long it has been is NOT a key factor, let alone the primary factor to consider. For this group, the questions to address are mostly about what might support an action seeking mandamus, what pursuing mandamus might achieve, and thus WHO may consider making the substantial investment to even merely explore the prospect of seeking mandamus relief.
Again, only a very SMALL NUMBER will be interested in pursuing mandamus as an appropriate recourse in their specific case, with the objective of actually generating a decision or at least accelerating processing of their own case. Sorry to disappoint, but this does NOT include those in the large crowd of 2019 applicants whose applications have been unfairly stalled due to the impact of measures taken (and to a large extent, not taken) in response to the global pandemic. Suggestions in some posts here, which to the contrary insinuate some promise for mandamus or other judicial relief (other than the political impact of encouraging IRCC to do better generally) based on the timeline for this group of applicants being unreasonable, are misleading at best.
The discussion here is fraught with confusing what constitutes an unreasonable processing timeline, for which recourse is largely left to the political sphere (hence the need for activist oriented measures), versus what constitutes an unreasonable delay in processing. These are NOT the same. What constitutes an unreasonable delay is MORE about the nature and cause of the delay, with the length of the delay being only one factor among many that are weighed in determining its reasonableness (or lack of reasonableness).
Caveat for the activist reason to see a lawyer regarding mandamus:
As I have previously noted, I support the activist agenda, including hiring a lawyer to push a mandamus action. But it should be clear what this is about and what can be realistically expected. This is NOT likely to accelerate the processing timeline for the individual, not by much anyway. This is NOT going to result in a pay day . . . the odds are overwhelming that those who participate will not be reimbursed direct costs let alone be otherwise compensated financially. It would be, quite literally, stupid to proceed in this based on an expectation of financial reward. It will demand an investment of time and effort in addition to money. The realistic objective is to encourage IRCC to be more aggressive in addressing its processing timeline shortfalls. Anyone promising more than that is blowing smoke.
So let's be clear: those interested in pursuing mandamus as a means of engaging in political activism, and financially able to afford this, and who are otherwise in a position to carry their share of the water (ranging from investing time and effort, to having a solid application already in process for long enough a lawyer will take the case), go for it. Go to a lawyer. Get an in-depth consultation. And to the extent you are willing and it is OK with the lawyer, come back here and share what you can. Many are anxiously awaiting some real information.
Further Comments In the Vein of What is Realistic:
Note, there are at least 17 other threads in the citizenship group which are specifically about mandamus related to lengthy processing times, and dozens more in which mandamus has been similarly discussed. Success stories are, well, sparse. Very sparse.
Some posts have suggested that despite the absence of Federal Court (FC) decisions granting mandamus in citizenship applications for grounds based on unreasonable delay, demand letters from lawyers have good odds of resulting in expedited processing. Beyond what may be little more than advertising, there is rather sparse evidence of that in actual cases; the experience reported by @ambient2 (five years ago) is a rare, isolated exception . . . and that was not in response to the demand but rather after the lawyer had actually initiated legal proceedings in the FC. And it is NOT clear what the lawyer argued was grounds for mandamus in that case. My guess is there was a substantive basis for the demand beyond the amount of time that had passed.
There have been at least a couple MILLION citizenship applications made since I joined this forum. I have followed literally hundreds of discussions here, and in other forums, about very long processing timelines. There are hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications still in process. In contrast, there is virtually no indication applications for mandamus have accelerated the processing timeline much for anyone. The very few specific cases in which mandamus has made a difference tend to highlight how relatively insignificant the amount of time is, that other factors are far more important.
So let's be clear about the absence of FC decisions granting mandamus in citizenship applications for grounds based on unreasonable delay. That tells the tale.
A Concluding Remark:
As I noted, there is a whole lot of . . . well not so informational stuff, which is not worth trying to sort through.
But one comment warrants being put to rest, not at all because it is among the egregious here (far from it, actually; there are many, many other posts and comments here of the, well, not so helpful sort), but because it represents something which all too often detracts from otherwise productive discussion, the ad hominem what's-your-interest slur, which is most often aimed at deriding the source of disagreement. I am not sure that is what was intended here:
I was not an asylum seeker and I am not directly affected by issues affecting refugees, but I saw an injustice getting little attention and I have invested over five years in addressing it (my last post in that topic was just a month ago). I am far from the only forum participant here to help, not to serve ourselves.
There is a whole lot of malarkey in much of what has been posted here (an understatement). I will not attempt to sort out what is informational versus nonsense (of which there is a lot here), except to reiterate that the length of time an application has been in process is at most a minor factor in regards to deciding if and when to seek mandamus. Indeed, for most applicants considering this, how much it will cost, and what they can afford, is a far more influential and important factor to consider. Whether or not their application is subject to a delay different from the mainstream of other applicants is a bigger, more significant factor than how long ago the application was made. And if so, WHY that is happening looms much, much larger.
The latter highlights a huge difference in WHO will actually be interested in pursuing mandamus. Some will be interested for activist reasons. Some others, a very SMALL NUMBER of others, will be interested in pursuing mandamus as an appropriate recourse in their specific case (with the objective of actually accelerating an outcome in their own case).
This topic is mostly (apart from the ranting, the diatribes, the distractions, the disruption) about the first group, those interested for activist reasons. For this group not much more needs to be said than "do it; just do it." There is a caveat, of course, a disclaimer, as there almost always is. Will get to that.
Who, in contrast, should consider seeing a lawyer about pursuing mandamus as an appropriate recourse in their specific case, for processing issues in their particular situation, with the objective of actually generating a decision, or at least accelerating an outcome in their own case, is a far more complicated subject. And ultimately, ONLY a good, reputable, experienced lawyer will be able to offer reliable information for those in this group. The caveat here, however, is actually quite simple: how long it has been is NOT a key factor, let alone the primary factor to consider. For this group, the questions to address are mostly about what might support an action seeking mandamus, what pursuing mandamus might achieve, and thus WHO may consider making the substantial investment to even merely explore the prospect of seeking mandamus relief.
Again, only a very SMALL NUMBER will be interested in pursuing mandamus as an appropriate recourse in their specific case, with the objective of actually generating a decision or at least accelerating processing of their own case. Sorry to disappoint, but this does NOT include those in the large crowd of 2019 applicants whose applications have been unfairly stalled due to the impact of measures taken (and to a large extent, not taken) in response to the global pandemic. Suggestions in some posts here, which to the contrary insinuate some promise for mandamus or other judicial relief (other than the political impact of encouraging IRCC to do better generally) based on the timeline for this group of applicants being unreasonable, are misleading at best.
The discussion here is fraught with confusing what constitutes an unreasonable processing timeline, for which recourse is largely left to the political sphere (hence the need for activist oriented measures), versus what constitutes an unreasonable delay in processing. These are NOT the same. What constitutes an unreasonable delay is MORE about the nature and cause of the delay, with the length of the delay being only one factor among many that are weighed in determining its reasonableness (or lack of reasonableness).
Caveat for the activist reason to see a lawyer regarding mandamus:
As I have previously noted, I support the activist agenda, including hiring a lawyer to push a mandamus action. But it should be clear what this is about and what can be realistically expected. This is NOT likely to accelerate the processing timeline for the individual, not by much anyway. This is NOT going to result in a pay day . . . the odds are overwhelming that those who participate will not be reimbursed direct costs let alone be otherwise compensated financially. It would be, quite literally, stupid to proceed in this based on an expectation of financial reward. It will demand an investment of time and effort in addition to money. The realistic objective is to encourage IRCC to be more aggressive in addressing its processing timeline shortfalls. Anyone promising more than that is blowing smoke.
So let's be clear: those interested in pursuing mandamus as a means of engaging in political activism, and financially able to afford this, and who are otherwise in a position to carry their share of the water (ranging from investing time and effort, to having a solid application already in process for long enough a lawyer will take the case), go for it. Go to a lawyer. Get an in-depth consultation. And to the extent you are willing and it is OK with the lawyer, come back here and share what you can. Many are anxiously awaiting some real information.
Further Comments In the Vein of What is Realistic:
Note, there are at least 17 other threads in the citizenship group which are specifically about mandamus related to lengthy processing times, and dozens more in which mandamus has been similarly discussed. Success stories are, well, sparse. Very sparse.
Some posts have suggested that despite the absence of Federal Court (FC) decisions granting mandamus in citizenship applications for grounds based on unreasonable delay, demand letters from lawyers have good odds of resulting in expedited processing. Beyond what may be little more than advertising, there is rather sparse evidence of that in actual cases; the experience reported by @ambient2 (five years ago) is a rare, isolated exception . . . and that was not in response to the demand but rather after the lawyer had actually initiated legal proceedings in the FC. And it is NOT clear what the lawyer argued was grounds for mandamus in that case. My guess is there was a substantive basis for the demand beyond the amount of time that had passed.
There have been at least a couple MILLION citizenship applications made since I joined this forum. I have followed literally hundreds of discussions here, and in other forums, about very long processing timelines. There are hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications still in process. In contrast, there is virtually no indication applications for mandamus have accelerated the processing timeline much for anyone. The very few specific cases in which mandamus has made a difference tend to highlight how relatively insignificant the amount of time is, that other factors are far more important.
So let's be clear about the absence of FC decisions granting mandamus in citizenship applications for grounds based on unreasonable delay. That tells the tale.
A Concluding Remark:
As I noted, there is a whole lot of . . . well not so informational stuff, which is not worth trying to sort through.
But one comment warrants being put to rest, not at all because it is among the egregious here (far from it, actually; there are many, many other posts and comments here of the, well, not so helpful sort), but because it represents something which all too often detracts from otherwise productive discussion, the ad hominem what's-your-interest slur, which is most often aimed at deriding the source of disagreement. I am not sure that is what was intended here:
But to be clear, there are many forum participants whose interest in this or that discussion, including this one, is NOT selfish, not ego-centric, not narcissistic, not about how it will impact them personally. Rather, many of us, myself included, are here to help to the extent we can. A dozen years ago now, plus some, this forum, and two others at the time, helped illuminate an important matter in my own path to immigrating here. What initially began as an effort to pay-it-forward has grown a good deal over the years. Quite often this is not about me, not at all about me. A fair example, perhaps, can be found here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/refugee-status-cessation-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/
I was not an asylum seeker and I am not directly affected by issues affecting refugees, but I saw an injustice getting little attention and I have invested over five years in addressing it (my last post in that topic was just a month ago). I am far from the only forum participant here to help, not to serve ourselves.
Last edited:
th
thanks for the inputs. another question, does "Mandamus" applies also to outland applicants or just for inland applicants?
Agreed. I am 2019 applicant too, outland. and based on my Notes , it say "For Passport Request" everything is passed except security (which is fine because it is redacted. and then when I sent webform, as of April 2021, it is for final review of an migration officer. never heard afterwards. every time i sent webform after that, the response is already generic.