Regarding Mandamus Relief For Citizenship Applications Suffering Lengthy Processing Times, Generally:
Actual mandamus relief accelerating citizenship application processing is uncommon, so uncommon it is probably rare.
Lawyer-made efforts to spur quicker processing, either directly or implicitly implicating mandamus litigation, appear to have some success for a few citizenship applicants. Most indicators suggest that NOT many have benefitted this way. This does not come cheap.
There are scores of discussions here about seeking mandamus relief in the context of citizenship applications. Maybe three or five threads for each success story. I will reference and link a selection of those in a separate post.
Most lawyers will not want to file one too early i.e. where they think it won't have any chance. (As I understand it, most will write an 'act now or we will file mandamus' threat letter first and they hope/want that to succeed - the idea is warn the govt and hope the govt decides it's better to clear the file rather than deal with courts).
Clarification: what you reference as "
write an 'act now or we will file mandamus' threat letter first and they hope/want that to succeed" is a NECESSARY preliminary step in pursuing a writ of mandamus. An application to the Federal Court for the writ must be based on a very specific demand to the agency to do what the law mandates it do, which the agency has either explicitly declined to do or has otherwise acted in a way demonstrating it is in fact effectively refusing to do what the law mandates the agency do.
So, this is not just the approach of "
most," but is the necessary way to approach obtaining mandamus relief.
It appears some lawyers will proceed with making this demand without being committed to following through with filing an application for the writ (in effect a lawsuit in the FC), and thus such a letter/demand can be, as you say, an effort to stir IRCC into action on the citizenship-application. Whether or not the PR-applicant-for-citizenship and the lawyer intend to follow through, actually file an application for the WoM (Writ of Mandamus) if IRCC does not proceed in response to the demand letter is, of course, an individual choice.
Last summer I posted an outline of the steps a lawyer had described (sorry, I do not have that source now) in pursuing mandamus in regards to a citizenship application. That is here:
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/when-to-make-mandamus.553224/page-3
That lawyer describes making, essentially, TWO demands to IRCC, a notice preceding the formal notice made as a prerequisite to a Federal Court action seeking a WoM. I am not sure of the reasoning underlying this. One possible reason is to send a less confrontational letter first, a more friendly request asking IRCC to take action. The prerequisite demand for obtaining a writ from the FC, in contrast, must make a very specific demand including a formal statement of what the law mandates and why in particular that action is required by law in this particular instance.
I spoke with a lawyer he suggested if you do not have an urgent process request then apply for mandamus after 20 months from the date you submitted your application
Reminder: the Writ of Mandamus is an EXTRAORDINARY remedy. And in this context, yes, "
extraordinary" is literal and means it is
extraordinary, only available in extraordinary circumstances.
Some citizenship applicants have succeeded in obtaining mandamus relief. But this NOT common. Rather, it really is extraordinary.
Lawyer-made demands, a prerequisite to qualify for a WoM, appear to sometimes succeed in pushing IRCC to act on a citizenship application more quickly. Even in cases where the odds of actually obtaining a Writ from the FC are uncertain.
There have been a number of anecdotal reports in this forum, three or six or so (total, over the course of many years), of their case proceeding to the stage where an application for the Writ was actually filed with the FC and then CIC/IRCC soon thereafter took action, leading to the oath, so the court case was dropped.
Over the last ten years or so there have been a few, and just a
few, cases in which a FC actually issued a WoM in a citizenship application case. There was, for example, the Sharafaldin case last year. Citizenship application pending for
more than TWENTY years by the time the FC granted Sharafaldin mandamus relief, which came more than THREE years after the application for the WoM was made in the FC. See Sharafaldin v. Canada, 2022 FC 768,
https://canlii.ca/t/jpgxw
Good lawyers, particularly those who have better odds of making demand letters that will spur IRCC to expedite action, will almost certainly be selective in taking these cases and even more so in the timing of making demands on IRCC. While the length of time that has passed is a significant factor, there are other factors to consider in whether to take a citizenship applicant client and when to make the prerequisite demand of IRCC.
Leading to . . .
as per the lawyer, you can apply when you pass 20 months from the submission date, the process for mandamus takes 2-3 months to reach the court. the cost is around 4K
But if its above the service standard (12 months), aren't you eligible ?
In regards to processing grant citizenship applications, the passage of time itself does NOT constitute grounds for granting a Writ of Mandamus.
In particular: there is no timeline within which IRCC must process a grant citizenship application. While remarkably long delays can be considered, as a factor, in determining whether a WoM should be issued, the amount of time itself is NOT a basis for issuing Mandamus.
An unexcused, unjustified DELAY in processing a citizenship application may be grounds for mandamus, but it is the wrongfulness of the DELAY that matters, not how much time has passed.
The latter can be a little complicated and confusing, since the amount of delay is a factor considered in determining if the reason for the delay is wrongful, either an abuse of procedural fairness or it amounts to IRCC in effect declining to process the application. For this aspect of the assessment, as to whether the length of the delay itself shows an abuse or denial of procedural fairness, what usually matters is how much longer processing is taking compared to how long other citizenship applications are taking (not the service standard for example).
That is not the only successful mandamus-related story told in this forum (noting that IRCC proceeded to schedule the oath without the mandamus action going to a hearing). Actually there have even been at least a couple more recent than that one (which was more than six years ago). Among the last MILLION PLUS getting to the oath, it appears that at least a dozen or more are likely to have gotten there sooner because lawyers were pushing or filing for mandamus relief. That number might even be low. Could be several dozen, again among the last MILLION plus taking the oath.
Hard to say how many others were turned away by lawyers, or how many paid thousands of dollars just to end up waiting like everyone else.
In terms of knowing how long to wait before seeking mandamus relief, at least we know the FC has clearly indicated fifteen years is enough; in the Sharafaldin case I referenced above, the FC stated: "
Nearly 15 years for the processing of a citizenship application is manifestly longer than the nature of the process required . . . " Sharafaldin v. Canada, 2022 FC 768,
https://canlii.ca/t/jpgxw
For those seriously considering the effort to accelerate processing by obtaining the assistance of a lawyer to rattle the mandamus sword, there's plenty of discussion here to consider. I will list topics (many but not nearly all) with links in a separate post.