.
Main thing: lawyer-up: To pursue the extraordinary Writ of Mandamus in an effort to compel IRCC to advance processing a grant-citizenship application, obtaining paid for input from a qualified immigration lawyer with experience in litigating complex grant-citizenship application issues is imperative, virtually necessary.
In particular, given the demanding requirements and technicalities involved in prosecuting an unusual legal remedy (including the extraordinary Writ of Mandamus) in the Federal Court, and the extent to which the grounds for the Writ of Mandamus, in particular, are necessarily dependent on the specific facts and circumstances in the individual case, varying widely from individual to individual, it would be prudent to obtain well-informed, professional input to even consider pursuing the Writ.
Make no mistake, in regards to engaging in such challenging legal procedures what is "advised" in forums like this, and other open sources, is on its face unreliable. Beware, particularly, of those who post more than they read, way more than they carefully read.
Even though engaging in the procedure to seek Mandamus relief has accelerated processing for some applicants, there is little if any indication it is successful for most applicants bogged down by investigatory processing for complex security or physical presence issues. Even among the relatively few who seem to have moved processing their application forward by initiating the Mandamus procedure, it is likely that most of those would have been on track to be finalized relatively shortly anyway. That is, for most of those whose application processing could be accelerated by seeking Mandamus, it is likely there is no need to pursue the Writ, their application likely to be finalized shortly even if they do not pursue this remedy.
To explore the possibility that pursuing the Writ could help move things along, get professional advice, paid-for advice. How much time has so far passed is a relevant factor but nowhere near a deciding factor.
Here's one thing (among many): it may be a good idea to obtain a copy of GCMS records through the ATIP process when the processing time exceeds, by six or more months, both the IRCC published processing times, and indications four-out-of-five other citizenship applications filed around the same period have been finalized. However, generally there is not really much useful information to be learned from these records and, in particular, most applicants tangled in such lengthy processing times can learn far more about why their application is slow by objectively reviewing the details of their case -- noting, with only rare exception, the applicant knows far, far more about their case and what could be a problem than anyone at IRCC (protests to the contrary noted).
Basically: for the vast majority of grant-citizenship applicants bogged down in extraordinarily lengthy processing times, given they know the facts and circumstances in their own case far better than anyone else, they already have plenty of information which should illuminate why. If this is not sufficient for them to figure out why, it is highly unlikely GCMS records will illuminate much if any more. They need the assistance of a qualified professional to figure things out and, in particular, to determine if they could benefit from pursuing the Mandamus remedy.
Overall: Mandamus does not offer a cure, magic or otherwise, for applications tangled in complex issues involving referrals for particularized inquiry or investigation. Some cases, no small number, are complex, some more complex than others.
Main thing: lawyer-up: To pursue the extraordinary Writ of Mandamus in an effort to compel IRCC to advance processing a grant-citizenship application, obtaining paid for input from a qualified immigration lawyer with experience in litigating complex grant-citizenship application issues is imperative, virtually necessary.
In particular, given the demanding requirements and technicalities involved in prosecuting an unusual legal remedy (including the extraordinary Writ of Mandamus) in the Federal Court, and the extent to which the grounds for the Writ of Mandamus, in particular, are necessarily dependent on the specific facts and circumstances in the individual case, varying widely from individual to individual, it would be prudent to obtain well-informed, professional input to even consider pursuing the Writ.
Make no mistake, in regards to engaging in such challenging legal procedures what is "advised" in forums like this, and other open sources, is on its face unreliable. Beware, particularly, of those who post more than they read, way more than they carefully read.
Even though engaging in the procedure to seek Mandamus relief has accelerated processing for some applicants, there is little if any indication it is successful for most applicants bogged down by investigatory processing for complex security or physical presence issues. Even among the relatively few who seem to have moved processing their application forward by initiating the Mandamus procedure, it is likely that most of those would have been on track to be finalized relatively shortly anyway. That is, for most of those whose application processing could be accelerated by seeking Mandamus, it is likely there is no need to pursue the Writ, their application likely to be finalized shortly even if they do not pursue this remedy.
To explore the possibility that pursuing the Writ could help move things along, get professional advice, paid-for advice. How much time has so far passed is a relevant factor but nowhere near a deciding factor.
Here's one thing (among many): it may be a good idea to obtain a copy of GCMS records through the ATIP process when the processing time exceeds, by six or more months, both the IRCC published processing times, and indications four-out-of-five other citizenship applications filed around the same period have been finalized. However, generally there is not really much useful information to be learned from these records and, in particular, most applicants tangled in such lengthy processing times can learn far more about why their application is slow by objectively reviewing the details of their case -- noting, with only rare exception, the applicant knows far, far more about their case and what could be a problem than anyone at IRCC (protests to the contrary noted).
Basically: for the vast majority of grant-citizenship applicants bogged down in extraordinarily lengthy processing times, given they know the facts and circumstances in their own case far better than anyone else, they already have plenty of information which should illuminate why. If this is not sufficient for them to figure out why, it is highly unlikely GCMS records will illuminate much if any more. They need the assistance of a qualified professional to figure things out and, in particular, to determine if they could benefit from pursuing the Mandamus remedy.
Overall: Mandamus does not offer a cure, magic or otherwise, for applications tangled in complex issues involving referrals for particularized inquiry or investigation. Some cases, no small number, are complex, some more complex than others.
