This isn't wild, citizenship is not a right; it's a privilege. Don’t get me wrong, I’m one of you who has been waiting since January 2024. But that doesn’t change the fact that becoming a citizen is a privilege, not a right, and we should all understand that.
2023 Citizenship Applications
- Thread starter GFLiam
- Start date
The citizenship is indeed a privilege.
That being said, IRCC absolutely must render a decision at some point, not necessarily within a specific timeframe, but it cannot delay the decision making indefinitely.
It's because IRCC has a public duty to act that there are successful mandamus decisions by the Federal Court, and a mandamus case compels IRCC to make a decision, not grant the citizenship. The decision being positive is then a consequence of Citizenship Act which specifies the conditions upon which a PR can be granted citizenship...
While I agree that citizenship is a privilege, not a right, timely processing of applications - especially those paid for as part of a publicly administered service - is a right.
You earned the opportunity to be considered for a grant of citizenship by following the law, paying taxes (a lot btw), contributing to the economy, volunteering, and meeting every requirement. You've earned that privilege.
But beyond that, you also paid for this service. And like with any other paid service, you have the right to expect timely delivery.
Imagine buying any service - let's say, a vacation package, and being told by the travel agent: "Well, a third party is handling things, and there’s no timeline. Maybe you’ll go in 1, 2, or 3 or even 4 years". That would be unacceptable anywhere else and it shouldn't be acceptable here either.
I second this. Citizenship is a privilege, but IRCC is structured specifically to process immigration, refugees and citizenship applications. The fact that they are not carrying out this job properly, it begs to question if the tax payers' money (mind you, taxes come from PRs as well, not just citizens) is used properly.
100% agree. What we’re witnessing is clearly a case of mismanagement. The fact that citizenship isn’t a guaranteed right doesn’t make this acceptable. We’ve all been living here for a long time, and the very least we deserve is a clear timeline, not to be left in a state of oblivion!
You're right girl. It's not a right but when you pay an application fee, you deserve a decision too. What IRCC is doing to people like GFLiam is psychological abuse.
xxxxx
As @Seym noted, applying for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate lawsuit for enforcing IRCC's legal obligation to process a citizenship application.
If, for example, a person is seeking legal recourse for a breach of contract, the appropriate legal action for such a wrong is a suit in contract. If seeking legal recourse for a wrong such as an injury caused by negligence, the appropriate legal action is a suit in tort. The scope of remedies in the respective cases is very different.
If seeking legal recourse for a government agency's failure to do what the law commands, like properly processing applications, the appropriate legal action is a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus, an order compelling the agency to do as the law requires.
For other sorts of remedies beyond what the law currently prescribes, go into politics to change the law or, for those with faith, pray as their faith dictates.
As @Ali.arshady observed, Canadian citizenship is not a right (not even for those born in Canada by the way) but rather a privilege. That said, there is a procedural right, a Charter right, to having a citizenship application fairly processed. But, again, the appropriate remedy for a failure to do so is a writ of mandamus.
Meanwhile, most who apply for citizenship are scheduled to take the oath within the processing times that IRCC publishes. Outside those periods in which there have been unusual circumstances interfering with the timely processing of applications, such as the impact of Covid, the vast majority take the oath within a year and a half.
On the other hand, resolving lawsuits in the Canadian courts often takes YEARS, a year and a half being at the more quickly resolved end of the spectrum for contested cases. Some litigation can be done in significantly shorter periods of time, but that is largely in regards to mostly uncontested matters, or is only partial relief . . . note, for example, in regards to citizenship applications, with rare exceptions the courts cannot compel the government to grant citizenship, only to proceed with processing the application. That said, if for example the Minister contests an application for mandamus, it can take a year or so just to get an order compelling IRCC to take the next step in processing, and of course that is only if the rather stringent elements qualifying for a writ of mandamus are met. (It appears that IRCC does not contest most well-founded demands made by reputable lawyers as part of the mandamus process, and lawyers are generally reluctant to prosecute such claims that are not well-founded, so there are not many mandamus actions, for citizenship applications, that are fully litigated in the court.)
Which brings this to the crux of things: not all applicants are created equal, and for sure not all applications equally make the case for a grant of citizenship. In particular, some cases pose questions and concerns which require non-routine processing resulting in substantially longer timelines.
IRCC, like any and all human institutions, sometimes fails to properly meet its mandates, and suffers from some mismanagement. Given the overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of applications are properly processed, however, there is no indication of any systemic mismanagement or failure to carry out its duties (in regards to citizenship applications . . . there has been more indication of flawed processing in regards to IRCC processing some other types of applications).
Even though there is a substantial number of individuals who claim their particular application has not been properly handled, that number is small compared to the hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications regularly processed. So, what "is clearly a case of mismanagement" is clearly about individual applicants, those particular individual applicants, and just like everyone else in an advanced and well-ordered society, they have the right to obtain professional assistance in pursuing appropriate remedies . . . just like an innocent person accused of a crime they did not commit can hire a lawyer and spend many months if not years pursuing vindication in the courts.
It's not rocket science. But it does go in the direction of jurisprudence, and that's not a forum for non-lawyers.
So for those who believe their application is not being properly handled, see a lawyer. (Or rant and whine, or pray, or whistle in the wind; I like to whistle in the wind, but can't whistle much.)
As @Seym noted, applying for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate lawsuit for enforcing IRCC's legal obligation to process a citizenship application.
If, for example, a person is seeking legal recourse for a breach of contract, the appropriate legal action for such a wrong is a suit in contract. If seeking legal recourse for a wrong such as an injury caused by negligence, the appropriate legal action is a suit in tort. The scope of remedies in the respective cases is very different.
If seeking legal recourse for a government agency's failure to do what the law commands, like properly processing applications, the appropriate legal action is a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus, an order compelling the agency to do as the law requires.
For other sorts of remedies beyond what the law currently prescribes, go into politics to change the law or, for those with faith, pray as their faith dictates.
As @Ali.arshady observed, Canadian citizenship is not a right (not even for those born in Canada by the way) but rather a privilege. That said, there is a procedural right, a Charter right, to having a citizenship application fairly processed. But, again, the appropriate remedy for a failure to do so is a writ of mandamus.
Meanwhile, most who apply for citizenship are scheduled to take the oath within the processing times that IRCC publishes. Outside those periods in which there have been unusual circumstances interfering with the timely processing of applications, such as the impact of Covid, the vast majority take the oath within a year and a half.
On the other hand, resolving lawsuits in the Canadian courts often takes YEARS, a year and a half being at the more quickly resolved end of the spectrum for contested cases. Some litigation can be done in significantly shorter periods of time, but that is largely in regards to mostly uncontested matters, or is only partial relief . . . note, for example, in regards to citizenship applications, with rare exceptions the courts cannot compel the government to grant citizenship, only to proceed with processing the application. That said, if for example the Minister contests an application for mandamus, it can take a year or so just to get an order compelling IRCC to take the next step in processing, and of course that is only if the rather stringent elements qualifying for a writ of mandamus are met. (It appears that IRCC does not contest most well-founded demands made by reputable lawyers as part of the mandamus process, and lawyers are generally reluctant to prosecute such claims that are not well-founded, so there are not many mandamus actions, for citizenship applications, that are fully litigated in the court.)
Which brings this to the crux of things: not all applicants are created equal, and for sure not all applications equally make the case for a grant of citizenship. In particular, some cases pose questions and concerns which require non-routine processing resulting in substantially longer timelines.
IRCC, like any and all human institutions, sometimes fails to properly meet its mandates, and suffers from some mismanagement. Given the overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of applications are properly processed, however, there is no indication of any systemic mismanagement or failure to carry out its duties (in regards to citizenship applications . . . there has been more indication of flawed processing in regards to IRCC processing some other types of applications).
Even though there is a substantial number of individuals who claim their particular application has not been properly handled, that number is small compared to the hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications regularly processed. So, what "is clearly a case of mismanagement" is clearly about individual applicants, those particular individual applicants, and just like everyone else in an advanced and well-ordered society, they have the right to obtain professional assistance in pursuing appropriate remedies . . . just like an innocent person accused of a crime they did not commit can hire a lawyer and spend many months if not years pursuing vindication in the courts.
It's not rocket science. But it does go in the direction of jurisprudence, and that's not a forum for non-lawyers.
So for those who believe their application is not being properly handled, see a lawyer. (Or rant and whine, or pray, or whistle in the wind; I like to whistle in the wind, but can't whistle much.)
The borderlines podcast (by Canadian immigration lawyers) recent edition (don't recall exactly which one) had some chatter / comments by lawyers that recently they're seeing government contest mandamus more - although this doesn't mean they'll all end up in court.
Background of course is that like many mandamus applications, the hope (for a well-founded claim / well formulated demand letter) is that government would in many cases prefer to simply 'settle' by satisfying the demand. And at least some of the time, certainly in cases where it's been truthfully delayed due to actual processing issues or mistakes or getting stuck in a queue (or any analogy one wishes for 'stuck in a neglected pile'), it may be possible to 'settle' by just, well, getting it done. It's in the government's interest, too, as it avoids more lawyers' time and court queues, etc.
Anyway these lawyers were saying that recently they're not getting this response, but effectively being told "go ahead and take us to court." Unclear whether this is just sheer number of mandamus demand letters, staff not having the time to deal the files, other 'organisational' issues, or a tactic of just buying time by forcing lawyers to go the next step - since getting to court seems to have longer delays at present, too. It may be that they're doing so assuming that a certain number will get their files completed by IRCC in the ordinary course of processing before any court date comes up.
I can't help but wonder - only speculation - if the number of mandamus demands, assisted by/written by/facilitated by AI chatbots and the like, that they're receiving has simply grown out of proportion and they've decided that forcing applicants to file for court dates is the most practical filter available.
I have not consumed that one, or I overlooked the comment.
Not sure, however, what your point is in the context here. Recourse for a case in which IRCC has, in effect, dropped the ball, is a Federal Court action seeking mandamus relief, and the path to pursuing that relief goes through a lawyer's office.
Yes, IRCC does drop the ball in some citizenship cases. (That said, are you sure the reference to there being more contested mandamus cases, as you partially recall, was about citizenship cases? They often discuss other immigration matters in regards to which IRCC gets more bogged down and off track.)
No, even if in more citizenship cases IRCC is contesting, or at least not positively responding to demands, there is little or no indication of a systemic failure to process citizenship applications. On the contrary, even in platforms oriented to giving air to complaints, the need for relief in citizenship cases still very much appears to be about particular individuals. And for aggrieved individuals in citizenship cases, the path to pursuing recourse goes through a lawyer's office, and if there are grounds, a lawsuit seeking mandamus relief.
Moreover, since "more" being contested appears to be about the overall number that does not necessarily mean it is no longer true that IRCC responds positively to most well-founded demands made by reputable lawyers, even if the lawyers perceive the proportion of positive responses is less . . . remember, fully litigated mandamus cases result in published decisions, and the number of those, at last glance, continues to be relatively small if not miniscule (representing a tiny fraction of a percent of citizenship applications).
Again, after all, make no mistake, the best recourse for an applicant who has made webform inquiries and obtained a copy of their GCMS records, and who after careful evaluation of all they know believes that IRCC is failing to properly process their application, is to see a lawyer, a lawyer they pay to review and assess the details in their case. And if warranted, hire the lawyer to pursue mandamus relief, beginning with the requisite preliminary demand.
Not unlike being wrongfully injured by another's tort: lawyer up. Similarly if accused of a crime you did not commit: lawyer-up (although in criminal cases the government does fund some legal services for the accused who cannot afford their own). And, by the way, no matter the merits, be prepared for the process to take a lengthy period of time. Justice is not dispensed in vending machines.
Caveat: this is not to say I advocate investing in a lawyer for every slowly processed citizenship application. Not close. Cannot document it, but my sense is that many of the cases in which IRCC has proceeded to finalize citizenship applications following formal demands (the requisite preliminary demand prior to filing an action seeking mandamus relief) were applications already well on their way to being finalized. There are many reasons processing is slow. Slow processing is not sufficient grounds for mandamus relief. In the past I made an effort, in posts here, to more fully address the particular requirements that need to be met to warrant mandamus relief but the practical reality is that if the process is just slower than it seems to be for others, save the cost of a lawyer, the odds are waiting is the better way to go.
In contrast, for those who genuinely believe (again, after doing the homework, webform queries et al) that IRCC is failing to properly process the application, SEE a LAWYER.
The point is quite simple and pretty much as I stated it, quite simple: lawyers are noticing that in the past, they would get some action or relief at the demand letter stage, i.e. they would not have to go the next stages of formally filing mandamus with the federal court. (For others: this is a standard step, one communicates to the government "pls do this thing or we will go to the courts for a writ of mandamus". Similarly to how one would do in civil contexts, write a formal letter "pls [do this thing which you're required to do by [[contract or whatever]] or I will go to the courts to get redress"])
And now, they are not getting movement/some positive response from govt in cases where they would previously have expected to. Obviously this is a somewhat probabilistic point - they did not expect this to always happen but 'often enough'. Purely from the perspective of practicing lawyers in the field.
I do not recall specifically, I believe that this was 'across the board' for IRCC interactions - it was certainly in an episode where citizenship apps were being discussed.
I did not allege this (I don't think there is, only - so far - a slight slowdown compared to, say, 2024).
The point in this to retain, IMO, is that the timeline between starting a mandamus process and getting to final decision is loooong. So the comments - even if anecdotal, even if partial, from lawyers used to the process - give a sense of the direction. (Although should be taken with a block of salt).
Reading the 'mandamus' practice by published decisions (at the very end of the process) is not even looking in the rear view mirror, but further back. Keeping in mind, it's a partial record, because those that get resolved before that don't show up in the court records.
Again so it's clear: my point is that SOME (most?) who are interested in mandamus are primarily interested in the hope the the demand letter/early filing will get them action 'sooner' than a positive mandamus decision 12, 24, 36 months later. (And there's a monetary difference for them, too)
My speculative comment was precisely about this: I wonder if the proliferation of chatgtp 'advocates' is causing more mandamus/demand letters to be filed, and - unintended consequence - the wait to become longer.
Agreed.
With all due empathy for those who are facing truly longer wait times for whatever reason (eg 2023 and before applications), there are some unrealistic expectations in more recent cohorts.
It's gonna take me a while to complete my three years but reading this thread is making me nervous -- and I haven't even applied yet! I can't imagine the dissatisfaction, resentment, sadness these folks are experiencing @stuckinsec and @GFLiam
What's scary is that it can happen to any of us! It's not just asylum seekers; these guys are approved through Express Entry. According to their previous threads, they don't tick any boxes for potential red flags either. Their application is just thrown in the black hole waiting to get picked up and finalized. It's outrageous! I just hope it doesn't happen to me when I apply, but if it does at least I know there are people who went through this hellish "non-routine" process and come out of the tunnel! I pray for all the folks in this thread. The mental agony must be crazy to wait 2x more than the published processing time and still not having any answers.
What's scary is that it can happen to any of us! It's not just asylum seekers; these guys are approved through Express Entry. According to their previous threads, they don't tick any boxes for potential red flags either. Their application is just thrown in the black hole waiting to get picked up and finalized. It's outrageous! I just hope it doesn't happen to me when I apply, but if it does at least I know there are people who went through this hellish "non-routine" process and come out of the tunnel! I pray for all the folks in this thread. The mental agony must be crazy to wait 2x more than the published processing time and still not having any answers.
Similar threads
