Why This Is Important
The continued backlog in Start-Up Visa (SUV) permanent residence applications has left many applicants in prolonged periods of uncertainty. Recent decisions from the Federal Court — Majidi v. Canada (2025 FC 680) and Tousi v. Canada (2025 FC 671) — reinforce that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) cannot rely on vague references to “security screening” to justify unreasonable delays. These decisions serve as critical guidance for applicants and counsel considering mandamus proceedings.
What Is Mandamus?
Mandamus is a legal remedy used to compel a government authority to fulfill a legal duty. In Canadian immigration, mandamus is most commonly sought when IRCC has failed to issue a decision within a reasonable period, even though the applicant has complied with all requirements. The courts have repeatedly confirmed that IRCC’s discretionary authority is not a license for indefinite delay.
Key Cases and Findings
1. Majidi v. Canada (2025 FC 680) — Over 62 Months of Delay
-
- Application submitted: December 2019.
-
- IRCC communication: Initial outreach in 2021; procedural fairness letter issued in 2023.
-
- Stated reason for delay: Security screening involving a co-applicant’s family member.
-
- Court’s findings: Generic reference to “security screening” was insufficient. The Court emphasized IRCC’s obligation to offer a detailed, case-specific justification.
-
- Outcome: Mandamus granted. IRCC ordered to issue a decision within 90 days.
2. Tousi v. Canada (2025 FC 671) — Over 5 Years of Delay
-
- Application submitted: February 10, 2020.
-
- IRCC communication: No new requirements communicated since December 2023.
-
- Stated reason for delay: Ongoing security screening related to a business partner.
-
- Court’s findings: IRCC failed to provide a meaningful explanation. Blanket references were deemed unacceptable.
-
- Outcome: Mandamus granted. IRCC directed to render a decision within 90 days.
Legal Principles Reaffirmed by the Court
-
- IRCC must process applications within a reasonable timeframe.
-
- Vague references to “security screening” are not a valid excuse for prolonged delays.
-
- Applicants are not required to demonstrate significant personal hardship to succeed in mandamus claims.
-
- In SUV applications, the presence of co-applicants does not absolve IRCC from its duty to process each file without undue delay.
What This Means for SUV Applicants
-
- Monitor the elapsed time since your SUV application was submitted. IRCC’s published processing times are a useful benchmark.
-
- Delays exceeding 38–40 months may warrant legal review and possible initiation of mandamus proceedings.
-
- Maintain full records of IRCC correspondence and responses. Transparency through Access to Information (ATIP) requests may provide valuable evidence.
-
- Ensure you have complied with all document requests and procedural steps — mandamus is more likely to succeed when the delay is not attributable to the applicant.
Final Word
Where applications have languished well beyond posted timelines and no specific reason is provided for the delay, mandamus may not just be an option — it may be necessary. The Federal Court has shown it will hold IRCC accountable when processing times become unreasonable and unexplained.
Greenberg Hameed PC would be pleased to assist with mandamus applications or other matters related to prolonged processing delays. Our experienced legal team can help assess whether this remedy is appropriate in your case and work with you to pursue a timely resolution.
Read the full cases here:
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/527932/index.do
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/527915/index.do
The content of this bulletin is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide or be relied on as legal advice.