Your point? You'll hit 23 months on august 27 at the earliest, more likely November 15. But do keep an eye on IRCCs posted processing times. If it falls below your time of processing, you might have a case. Until then it's just live life, and wait.
Lawyer for mandamus
- Thread starter FW-SandA
- Start date
You need a lawyer, basically, to file a mandamus that has any chance of being successful. So ... ask the lawyer.
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).
So ask them. Different lawyers may have differnt opinions, of course, and you might find one that will take your money even if it means filing too early, but mostly they want it to succeed without extra hassle.
"This report covers the 2020-2021 fiscal year. A fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31."
Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...te/service-declaration/service-standards.html
=============================
Citizenship grant applications (becoming a Canadian citizen)
The citizenship grant process includes citizenship grant applications and right of citizenship.
The service standards are only for applications with complete information and supporting documents.
Citizenship grant applications – Adults and minors
- Our service standard: process applications within 12 months
- Our target: meet the standard for at least 80% of applications submitted
- Our performance in 2020-2021: processed 10% of applications within the standard
Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...te/service-declaration/service-standards.html
===============================
On March 31, 2022, we updated the processing times tool to more accurately show how long it may take to process your application.
Before, it showed our service standards, which are our commitment to processing your application under normal circumstances. Service standards are not updated regularly.
Most permanent residence and citizenship services now show processing times that are updated every week, based on data from the previous 6 months.
These updates give you more realistic and up-to-date information that reflects
- volumes of applications being processed and
- any changes to our ability to process applications
Last edited:
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.
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-i...d/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.
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 . . .
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.
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.
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-i...d/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.
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 . . .
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.
For those seriously considering the effort to accelerate processing their citizenship application by obtaining the assistance of a lawyer to rattle the mandamus sword, there's plenty of discussion here to consider.
I have engaged in many of these discussions. Here are some samples going back many years:
from 2015 in topic Mandamus application assistance here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...mandamus-application-assistance.274775/page-2
from 2016; in topic Mandamus? here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/mandamus.413733/page-2
from 2018 in topic When to make mandamus? here https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...d/threads/when-to-make-mandamus.553224/page-2
Relevant Topics with Links:
As noted, for those seriously considering the effort to accelerate processing their citizenship application by obtaining the assistance of a lawyer to rattle the mandamus sword, there's plenty of discussion here to consider. This is a partial list of topic titles with a link:
Mandamus? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/mandamus.413733/
Mandamus help https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/mandamus-help.484571/
When to make mandamus? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/when-to-make-mandamus.553224/
Mandamus application assistance https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...mandamus-application-assistance.274775/page-2
Lets flood CIC with Mandamus https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i.../threads/lets-flood-cic-with-mandamus.201173/
Federal Court - Writ Of Mandamus Decision
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...deral-court-writ-of-mandamus-decision.244492/
Writ of mandamus: Do you know a good lawyer? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...of-mandamus-do-you-know-a-good-lawyer.150703/
Mandamus? I’m a June 2018 applicant waiting for the test. https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...e-2018-applicant-waiting-for-the-test.668764/
What should I do before filing the mandamus? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...hould-i-do-before-filing-the-mandamus.279481/
Anyone this forum has ever filed for Writ of Mandamus him/herself? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...iled-for-writ-of-mandamus-him-herself.237750/
After 36 months: I go for Mandamus! Who else here has hired a lawyer? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...amus-who-else-here-has-hired-a-lawyer.182495/
Applicants waiting for more than 2 years interested in Mandamus with a firm as a group meet here !!! https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...amus-with-a-firm-as-a-group-meet-here.743417/
I have engaged in many of these discussions. Here are some samples going back many years:
from 2015 in topic Mandamus application assistance here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...mandamus-application-assistance.274775/page-2
from 2016; in topic Mandamus? here: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/mandamus.413733/page-2
from 2018 in topic When to make mandamus? here https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...d/threads/when-to-make-mandamus.553224/page-2
Relevant Topics with Links:
As noted, for those seriously considering the effort to accelerate processing their citizenship application by obtaining the assistance of a lawyer to rattle the mandamus sword, there's plenty of discussion here to consider. This is a partial list of topic titles with a link:
Mandamus? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/mandamus.413733/
Mandamus help https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/mandamus-help.484571/
When to make mandamus? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/when-to-make-mandamus.553224/
Mandamus application assistance https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...mandamus-application-assistance.274775/page-2
Lets flood CIC with Mandamus https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i.../threads/lets-flood-cic-with-mandamus.201173/
Federal Court - Writ Of Mandamus Decision
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...deral-court-writ-of-mandamus-decision.244492/
Writ of mandamus: Do you know a good lawyer? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...of-mandamus-do-you-know-a-good-lawyer.150703/
Mandamus? I’m a June 2018 applicant waiting for the test. https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...e-2018-applicant-waiting-for-the-test.668764/
What should I do before filing the mandamus? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...hould-i-do-before-filing-the-mandamus.279481/
Anyone this forum has ever filed for Writ of Mandamus him/herself? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...iled-for-writ-of-mandamus-him-herself.237750/
After 36 months: I go for Mandamus! Who else here has hired a lawyer? https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...amus-who-else-here-has-hired-a-lawyer.182495/
Applicants waiting for more than 2 years interested in Mandamus with a firm as a group meet here !!! https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...amus-with-a-firm-as-a-group-meet-here.743417/
Going for mandamus for your citizenship application is a big step, and having a good lawyer by your side is crucial. I think that you might want to look for a lawyer who specializes in immigration law and has experience with mandamus cases.
They can help guide you through the process and advocate for your rights. And hey, when I was in a tough spot, Longmont pedestrian accident lawyer provided me with really helpful insight during our consultation. They might be able to offer some guidance or even a referral to a lawyer who can assist you with your situation.
Hello everyone,
I am currently at the leave stage of a mandamus application (Department of Justice has filed a Notice of Appearance and I am waiting for their Respondent’s Record), and I would like to share my experience so far and get some guidance from those who have been through similar situations. Up to this point, I have been self-represented and have prepared everything myself using tools like ChatGPT and Claude, without a lawyer.
I applied for a Canadian eTA in mid-2024. Shortly after applying, IRCC requested additional documents, which I provided in full within the deadline. Since then, there have been no further requests, no procedural fairness letters, and no decision.
After many months of silence, I obtained GCMS notes from IRCC and later CBSA notes. What I found was quite surprising:
Background (for context):
At this point, I feel I have a strong case on delay, but I’m also concerned about what happens next; especially whether IRCC might issue a refusal just to close the file, and what that would realistically look like.
So I would really appreciate your thoughts on a few questions:
I am currently at the leave stage of a mandamus application (Department of Justice has filed a Notice of Appearance and I am waiting for their Respondent’s Record), and I would like to share my experience so far and get some guidance from those who have been through similar situations. Up to this point, I have been self-represented and have prepared everything myself using tools like ChatGPT and Claude, without a lawyer.
I applied for a Canadian eTA in mid-2024. Shortly after applying, IRCC requested additional documents, which I provided in full within the deadline. Since then, there have been no further requests, no procedural fairness letters, and no decision.
After many months of silence, I obtained GCMS notes from IRCC and later CBSA notes. What I found was quite surprising:
- The file was referred for security screening (VIT34) in July 2024
- Internal notes months later still say: “awaiting VIT results”
Background (for context):
- I originally come from the Middle East and first went to Canada as a student
- During that period, I had a U.S. visa refusal which I did not disclose in a later Canadian application
- That omission led to a misrepresentation finding and a 5-year ban (now long expired)
- Having no other option at the time, I left Canada, later moved to Europe, and obtained European citizenship
- As a European citizen, I now only require an eTA, and in my current application I fully disclosed all past history
At this point, I feel I have a strong case on delay, but I’m also concerned about what happens next; especially whether IRCC might issue a refusal just to close the file, and what that would realistically look like.
So I would really appreciate your thoughts on a few questions:
- Based on similar cases, what should I realistically expect at this stage?
- If a refusal comes, is it usually weak and challengeable, or something more serious?
- Do you think it is important to get a lawyer at this stage, or is it still manageable self-represented until after the Respondent’s Record?
- Has anyone had a similar “VIT34 stuck with CBSA” situation, and how did it resolve?
@meyti your request is in nature different from what people deal with in this specific section of the forum. Canada, just like any other country, is free to allow or deny a foreigner admission. So, if your mandamus is successful, it just means that Canada must take a decision, but nothing compels them to take one in your favor, and justify such decision, while, for citizenship, if you're eligible, well, Canada shall give you citizenship, as per Citizenship Act. So, not sure people here are in the best position to tell you what to expect.
But yes, a judicial review of an immigration decision is always possible, and probably something lawyer material... If needed in the future, have a look here https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...ion/refusal-options/federal-court-review.html
But yes, a judicial review of an immigration decision is always possible, and probably something lawyer material... If needed in the future, have a look here https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...ion/refusal-options/federal-court-review.html
.
As I have responded elsewhere, skipping the delicacies here, your effort to dictate how I act is rejected. (It is misguided, misplaced, off the mark in numerous respects.)
But to be clear, I am no perfectionist (not even close) and I nonetheless will not act like a perfectionist, nor like "someone who has never made a mistake." I have made and will almost certainly continue to make plenty of mistakes.
In contrast, however, I make a concerted effort to minimize mistakes here, and to acknowledge and correct the mistakes I do make, recognizing in particular that I encourage others to correct me when warranted. This is about getting things right. And since my participation here is largely focused on just a few of the more complex and often technical matters, it is important for me to make a concerted effort to get things right. Unlike what appears to be the norm in this forum, I generally and often repeatedly proof-read and revise my posts before posting, sometimes working through multiple drafts over the course of many days (as I have in an effort to address your lawsuit against the government).
And even in regards to information with which I am well familiar, I often revisit sources to reaffirm I am getting it right . . . as right as we can.
But speaking of mistakes, it is almost always a mistake to initiate a lawsuit against the government in Federal Court without the assistance of a lawyer.
So in regards to . . .
Yes, it is important to get a lawyer . . . but that was true at an earlier stage, BEFORE making the formal demand (let alone before commencing a lawsuit against the government).
At this stage, in particular, it would be best to seek a lawyer's input, at the least a consultation based on an experienced immigration lawyer's paid-for in-depth review of your whole case.
It is no secret that it is almost always a mistake to initiate a lawsuit against the government in Federal Court without the assistance of a lawyer. And this is even more true when the lawsuit is seeking an extraordinary remedy like the Writ of Mandamus, especially in regards to immigration matters. Indeed, in this topic alone there are several posts which state the need for a lawyer in prosecuting such actions, that "having a good lawyer by your side is crucial" (as posted just above by @Babixzaker). I not only say this with emphasis in posts above, I cite and link more than a dozen other conversations in this forum which amply illustrate the point, including discussions in which I cite and link additional sources, including accounts of actual cases in official decisions.
So I suspect you are not paying much attention, if any, to my input (which tends to be TLDR for more than a few, particularly those not much interested in real information), since you say you have learned a lot from what has been posted here, and the one thing I have emphasized about mandamus, repeatedly, again including in posts above preceding yours, is that a lawyer is needed to realistically pursue mandamus relief in the Federal Court . . . to in effect sue the Canadian government.
Generally I make a concerted effort to focus on providing information not advice, but for questions about suing the government in Federal Court, I do not hesitate to advise lawyering-up. This is fundamental advice for which there should be very little if any controversy, advice like "don't leave the cake out in the rain" (my sad theft of a silly pop song, twisted and exploited), or more relevant in regards to immigration, "be honest and truthfully accurate when dealing with Canadian immigration authorities." There should be no need to elaborate why being honest with CBSA and IRCC is important (which it appears you have learned through personal experience).
Advice to lawyer-up BEFORE commencing a lawsuit against the government, when seeking mandamus relief in regards to the exercise of a discretionary act in an immigration matter, is just as fundamental . . . even if explaining why is complicated.
That is . . . Why someone needs a lawyer when prosecuting a lawsuit against the Canadian government, generally, and more emphatically so when that lawsuit is pursuing a Writ of Mandamus ordering the government to do a specific act, and especially so when seeking mandamus relief in regards to discretionary decision-making, may not be as obvious as the need to be honest with CBSA and IRCC, but there really should be no dispute about the need for a lawyer to do this. Sure, there are some individuals with a background in law and administrative procedures who can competently navigate the process without a lawyer, but even those well-trained and experienced in the law know that if they represent themselves they have, as the saying goes, a fool for a client.
Nonetheless, make no mistake, anyone who does not have the background and experience to navigate prosecuting a mandamus action in Federal Court without using any AI tools, really, really needs a lawyer. That is, as much as AI can help, it cannot replace the practical and technical expertise of a lawyer in these kinds of lawsuits. AI tools can realistically only help those who otherwise have enough knowledge, experience, and judgment to navigate this process without the use of such tools.
Let us be clear: if AI tools were legitimately offering information about how to seek mandamus relief for an immigration matter in Canada, the first and most emphatic thing they would suggest is to lawyer-up, to NOT proceed pro se.
Meanwhile I will continue to work on responding to the particular questions . . . to be continued.
As I have responded elsewhere, skipping the delicacies here, your effort to dictate how I act is rejected. (It is misguided, misplaced, off the mark in numerous respects.)
But to be clear, I am no perfectionist (not even close) and I nonetheless will not act like a perfectionist, nor like "someone who has never made a mistake." I have made and will almost certainly continue to make plenty of mistakes.
In contrast, however, I make a concerted effort to minimize mistakes here, and to acknowledge and correct the mistakes I do make, recognizing in particular that I encourage others to correct me when warranted. This is about getting things right. And since my participation here is largely focused on just a few of the more complex and often technical matters, it is important for me to make a concerted effort to get things right. Unlike what appears to be the norm in this forum, I generally and often repeatedly proof-read and revise my posts before posting, sometimes working through multiple drafts over the course of many days (as I have in an effort to address your lawsuit against the government).
And even in regards to information with which I am well familiar, I often revisit sources to reaffirm I am getting it right . . . as right as we can.
But speaking of mistakes, it is almost always a mistake to initiate a lawsuit against the government in Federal Court without the assistance of a lawyer.
So in regards to . . .
Yes, it is important to get a lawyer . . . but that was true at an earlier stage, BEFORE making the formal demand (let alone before commencing a lawsuit against the government).
At this stage, in particular, it would be best to seek a lawyer's input, at the least a consultation based on an experienced immigration lawyer's paid-for in-depth review of your whole case.
It is no secret that it is almost always a mistake to initiate a lawsuit against the government in Federal Court without the assistance of a lawyer. And this is even more true when the lawsuit is seeking an extraordinary remedy like the Writ of Mandamus, especially in regards to immigration matters. Indeed, in this topic alone there are several posts which state the need for a lawyer in prosecuting such actions, that "having a good lawyer by your side is crucial" (as posted just above by @Babixzaker). I not only say this with emphasis in posts above, I cite and link more than a dozen other conversations in this forum which amply illustrate the point, including discussions in which I cite and link additional sources, including accounts of actual cases in official decisions.
So I suspect you are not paying much attention, if any, to my input (which tends to be TLDR for more than a few, particularly those not much interested in real information), since you say you have learned a lot from what has been posted here, and the one thing I have emphasized about mandamus, repeatedly, again including in posts above preceding yours, is that a lawyer is needed to realistically pursue mandamus relief in the Federal Court . . . to in effect sue the Canadian government.
Generally I make a concerted effort to focus on providing information not advice, but for questions about suing the government in Federal Court, I do not hesitate to advise lawyering-up. This is fundamental advice for which there should be very little if any controversy, advice like "don't leave the cake out in the rain" (my sad theft of a silly pop song, twisted and exploited), or more relevant in regards to immigration, "be honest and truthfully accurate when dealing with Canadian immigration authorities." There should be no need to elaborate why being honest with CBSA and IRCC is important (which it appears you have learned through personal experience).
Advice to lawyer-up BEFORE commencing a lawsuit against the government, when seeking mandamus relief in regards to the exercise of a discretionary act in an immigration matter, is just as fundamental . . . even if explaining why is complicated.
That is . . . Why someone needs a lawyer when prosecuting a lawsuit against the Canadian government, generally, and more emphatically so when that lawsuit is pursuing a Writ of Mandamus ordering the government to do a specific act, and especially so when seeking mandamus relief in regards to discretionary decision-making, may not be as obvious as the need to be honest with CBSA and IRCC, but there really should be no dispute about the need for a lawyer to do this. Sure, there are some individuals with a background in law and administrative procedures who can competently navigate the process without a lawyer, but even those well-trained and experienced in the law know that if they represent themselves they have, as the saying goes, a fool for a client.
Nonetheless, make no mistake, anyone who does not have the background and experience to navigate prosecuting a mandamus action in Federal Court without using any AI tools, really, really needs a lawyer. That is, as much as AI can help, it cannot replace the practical and technical expertise of a lawyer in these kinds of lawsuits. AI tools can realistically only help those who otherwise have enough knowledge, experience, and judgment to navigate this process without the use of such tools.
Let us be clear: if AI tools were legitimately offering information about how to seek mandamus relief for an immigration matter in Canada, the first and most emphatic thing they would suggest is to lawyer-up, to NOT proceed pro se.
Meanwhile I will continue to work on responding to the particular questions . . . to be continued.
Your Particular Questions . . .
I have been working on responding to your other questions . . .
. . . . but the need to lawyer-up issue is the main one, and that includes why it is important to lawyer-up.
The why is important but complicated, not easy to explain. This is not just about being represented but also about identifying the issues clearly and getting answers to your questions, like what is to be expected, answers from a reliable source, far more reliable than what you will find here, including more reliable than me notwithstanding the effort I have made in researching mandamus for well over a decade and the care I put into discussing it.
I am still working on that, and assuming I have the time I will try to address this further. For now I will emphasize that amidst the why lawyer-up explanations, a big one is that a lawyer will likely have a far better grasp of what the real issues and important questions are. You say, for example . . .
That was not a point I tried to make, whether or not the "past" you are referencing is in regards to your previous misrepresentation or something else in your past.
But to be clear, the delay is likely related to your past, questions about your past. In particular, it appears that your case was likely transferred to the NSSD (which is part of CBSA) or to CSIS to investigate you for potential inadmissibility on security grounds, pursuant to Section 34 IRPA, not about inadmissibility for misrepresentation pursuant to Section 40 IRPA. While inadmissibility for misrepresentation expires after five years, inadmissibility pursuant to security grounds does not.
I do not know which agency got the referral. In the past I know that a Visitor Information Transmission (VIT) for Section 34 IRPA screening was typically referred to the NSSD (that is, the National Security Screening Division within CBSA), but that information is dated. It could be CSIS. It could be both NSSD and CSIS. Notwithstanding service standards that call for completing security screening typically within a number of days (not weeks, let alone months), if for some reason the screening cannot be completed within that period of time (which tends to be more common for individuals who have lived in certain regions, including some countries or particular regions within countries in the Middle East), a hold is placed on the case (not by IRCC but by NSSD or CSIS). When that happens, either agency/division may be slow, and they often are very slow. Cases can be on hold for years even in regards to screening Canadians (such as Canadian PRs applying for citizenship), let alone FNs.
A big problem with this is that a lot of the information regarding this process is behind the confidential information curtain. Even older materials which have become publicly available, like the CBSA Immigration Control Manual chapter for security screening (such as the version last updated nearly a decade ago), are often extensively redacted (which seems to be especially so as to the parts which really reveal how things work). And in terms of what information is available to clients, some of the relevant notations in GCMS, for the individual who is the subject of the screening, are not disclosed in versions of GCMS records shared with clients (and thus are also not seen by call centre agents responding to queries from clients).
So it can be rather difficult to identify and properly plead allegations of improper delay (remember, it is not anywhere near sufficient to base the action on how lengthy the delay is), in addition to the difficulty of formulating the proper demand for IRCC to act in accordance with what the law mandates be done (getting this right is crucial). The thing is, if the demand letter itself fails to sufficiently put IRCC on notice that the law mandates IRCC to act in a very specific way, that alone will preclude getting relief from the Federal Court. Many, including many lawyers, underestimate how difficult it is to frame the demand when discretionary decision-making is at issue.
All that said, it is not just possible but feasible that the government's lawyers will concede and IRCC will take appropriate action IF, if when the government reviews the case in preparing the record, they conclude that you are not inadmissible and IRCC should act to approve the application. That is, if pursuant to the facts and the law you should prevail (if there are no grounds to conclude you are inadmissible, no grounds for deny eTA), the case could be summarily terminated, effectively in your favour. But of course this is only likely if, for example, a better demand letter from a lawyer would have accomplished this without having to file the lawsuit.
One more distinction for now: Notwithstanding the lower odds of success when the demand letter is made by a non-lawyer, many elect to take that step without a lawyer. If that fails to get the job done, no big loss. But if and when the demand letter fails to stir a positive action, that's when it becomes crucial to obtain a lawyer's help in going forward, before commencing a lawsuit in the Federal Court (where parties who lose can be charged costs to compensate the government). A lawyer can submit a new demand letter, one more likely to be sufficient for purposes of prosecuting a mandamus lawsuit in the Federal Court. (By the way, I don't have a citation or link at hand, but one law firm's published information about pursuing mandamus in citizenship cases discusses making two demand letters, the first a more or less friendly request, an effort to persuade IRCC to act, and if that does not do the trick, a second more formal demand specifically framed to meet the requirements for obtaining relief from the Federal Court.)
And some clarifications:
Even though issuing eTA is discretionary, IRCC must nonetheless employ a fair process and can only deny the application for reasons based on the governing law applied to known facts in the case. If pursuant to law you qualify for eTA (which mostly means you carry a passport from a visa-exempt country, made a proper application, and you are not inadmissible), IRCC must make a decision in your favour; if they don't, they can be compelled to justify why (differing a bit from comments by @Seym). There is no right of appeal, so seeking leave for judicial review is the applicant's remedy for an improper or invalid refusal.
(For discussion of and references to some eTA cases heard by the Federal Court, including discussion of an applicant's right to procedural fairness, see article titled "Canada: the evolution of electronic travel authorisations" here: https://www.ibanet.org/article/20C78B3F-F0D5-460B-A72C-1B54202CC964 . . . noting that discussion does not address delayed decisions and in regards to litigated matters is more focused on misrepresentation cases and situations where despite eTA travellers have been found inadmissible attendant PoE screening when they arrive here.)
Meanwhile, the request for additional documents you got from IRCC shortly after applying could have constituted a procedural fairness letter (PFL), regarding which you probably should have at least consulted with a lawyer about at the time (depending on the particular requests and reasons for those requests). IRCC is notorious for understating particular issues of concern.
I am just scratching the surface of potential issues. A lawyer would be a far better source for your questions. Nonetheless, there are other aspects of your case, and your reported experience in particular, that I may address further . . . assuming I have the time.
I have been working on responding to your other questions . . .
. . . . but the need to lawyer-up issue is the main one, and that includes why it is important to lawyer-up.
The why is important but complicated, not easy to explain. This is not just about being represented but also about identifying the issues clearly and getting answers to your questions, like what is to be expected, answers from a reliable source, far more reliable than what you will find here, including more reliable than me notwithstanding the effort I have made in researching mandamus for well over a decade and the care I put into discussing it.
I am still working on that, and assuming I have the time I will try to address this further. For now I will emphasize that amidst the why lawyer-up explanations, a big one is that a lawyer will likely have a far better grasp of what the real issues and important questions are. You say, for example . . .
". . . if your point is that my past explains the current delay, that is not also a legal answer. We are talking about delay here. Past issues might be used to justify a refusal, but they do not automatically justify an indefinite delay without a decision."
That was not a point I tried to make, whether or not the "past" you are referencing is in regards to your previous misrepresentation or something else in your past.
But to be clear, the delay is likely related to your past, questions about your past. In particular, it appears that your case was likely transferred to the NSSD (which is part of CBSA) or to CSIS to investigate you for potential inadmissibility on security grounds, pursuant to Section 34 IRPA, not about inadmissibility for misrepresentation pursuant to Section 40 IRPA. While inadmissibility for misrepresentation expires after five years, inadmissibility pursuant to security grounds does not.
I do not know which agency got the referral. In the past I know that a Visitor Information Transmission (VIT) for Section 34 IRPA screening was typically referred to the NSSD (that is, the National Security Screening Division within CBSA), but that information is dated. It could be CSIS. It could be both NSSD and CSIS. Notwithstanding service standards that call for completing security screening typically within a number of days (not weeks, let alone months), if for some reason the screening cannot be completed within that period of time (which tends to be more common for individuals who have lived in certain regions, including some countries or particular regions within countries in the Middle East), a hold is placed on the case (not by IRCC but by NSSD or CSIS). When that happens, either agency/division may be slow, and they often are very slow. Cases can be on hold for years even in regards to screening Canadians (such as Canadian PRs applying for citizenship), let alone FNs.
A big problem with this is that a lot of the information regarding this process is behind the confidential information curtain. Even older materials which have become publicly available, like the CBSA Immigration Control Manual chapter for security screening (such as the version last updated nearly a decade ago), are often extensively redacted (which seems to be especially so as to the parts which really reveal how things work). And in terms of what information is available to clients, some of the relevant notations in GCMS, for the individual who is the subject of the screening, are not disclosed in versions of GCMS records shared with clients (and thus are also not seen by call centre agents responding to queries from clients).
So it can be rather difficult to identify and properly plead allegations of improper delay (remember, it is not anywhere near sufficient to base the action on how lengthy the delay is), in addition to the difficulty of formulating the proper demand for IRCC to act in accordance with what the law mandates be done (getting this right is crucial). The thing is, if the demand letter itself fails to sufficiently put IRCC on notice that the law mandates IRCC to act in a very specific way, that alone will preclude getting relief from the Federal Court. Many, including many lawyers, underestimate how difficult it is to frame the demand when discretionary decision-making is at issue.
All that said, it is not just possible but feasible that the government's lawyers will concede and IRCC will take appropriate action IF, if when the government reviews the case in preparing the record, they conclude that you are not inadmissible and IRCC should act to approve the application. That is, if pursuant to the facts and the law you should prevail (if there are no grounds to conclude you are inadmissible, no grounds for deny eTA), the case could be summarily terminated, effectively in your favour. But of course this is only likely if, for example, a better demand letter from a lawyer would have accomplished this without having to file the lawsuit.
One more distinction for now: Notwithstanding the lower odds of success when the demand letter is made by a non-lawyer, many elect to take that step without a lawyer. If that fails to get the job done, no big loss. But if and when the demand letter fails to stir a positive action, that's when it becomes crucial to obtain a lawyer's help in going forward, before commencing a lawsuit in the Federal Court (where parties who lose can be charged costs to compensate the government). A lawyer can submit a new demand letter, one more likely to be sufficient for purposes of prosecuting a mandamus lawsuit in the Federal Court. (By the way, I don't have a citation or link at hand, but one law firm's published information about pursuing mandamus in citizenship cases discusses making two demand letters, the first a more or less friendly request, an effort to persuade IRCC to act, and if that does not do the trick, a second more formal demand specifically framed to meet the requirements for obtaining relief from the Federal Court.)
And some clarifications:
Even though issuing eTA is discretionary, IRCC must nonetheless employ a fair process and can only deny the application for reasons based on the governing law applied to known facts in the case. If pursuant to law you qualify for eTA (which mostly means you carry a passport from a visa-exempt country, made a proper application, and you are not inadmissible), IRCC must make a decision in your favour; if they don't, they can be compelled to justify why (differing a bit from comments by @Seym). There is no right of appeal, so seeking leave for judicial review is the applicant's remedy for an improper or invalid refusal.
(For discussion of and references to some eTA cases heard by the Federal Court, including discussion of an applicant's right to procedural fairness, see article titled "Canada: the evolution of electronic travel authorisations" here: https://www.ibanet.org/article/20C78B3F-F0D5-460B-A72C-1B54202CC964 . . . noting that discussion does not address delayed decisions and in regards to litigated matters is more focused on misrepresentation cases and situations where despite eTA travellers have been found inadmissible attendant PoE screening when they arrive here.)
Meanwhile, the request for additional documents you got from IRCC shortly after applying could have constituted a procedural fairness letter (PFL), regarding which you probably should have at least consulted with a lawyer about at the time (depending on the particular requests and reasons for those requests). IRCC is notorious for understating particular issues of concern.
I am just scratching the surface of potential issues. A lawyer would be a far better source for your questions. Nonetheless, there are other aspects of your case, and your reported experience in particular, that I may address further . . . assuming I have the time.
Similar threads
