Federal Court Rejects Claim Over PR Application Processing Delay

Date: 20260709 Docket: IMM-3720-25 Citation: 2026 FC 927 Ottawa, Ontario, July 9, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], applied for permanent residence as a member of the [NAME] ( “PR Application” ) , pursuant to subsection 90(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [ IRPR ] in January 2019, over seven years ago. The Applicant’s wife and daughter were included as dependents. There is no decision to date on his PR Application. The Applicant is asking this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel [NAME] [[NAME]] to make a determination on his PR Application. [ 2 ] I find the Applicant has not established that the delay in processing his PR Application has been unreasonable. I am satisfied that the Minister has shown that there is an adequate justification for the delay in this case. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Procedural History [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of China. Approximately six months after he filed the PR Application, the Applicant’s wife and daughter chose to move to Montreal – the daughter, who was 12 at that time, came on a study permit and her mother on a visitor visa. The Applicant’s wife and daughter remain in Canada while the Applicant has stayed in China during the processing of the PR Application. At the time the Applicant applied for PR, the average processing time was approximately four years (44-46 months). [ 4 ] No substantive work began on the Applicant’s PR Application until May 2023, approximately four years after the application was filed. At that time, the application was reviewed and eligibility was passed, including security/criminality clearance checks for the Applicant and his wife. The [NAME] was a minor at the time and therefore no security/criminality check was required. Medical checks were also passed in July 2023. [ 5 ] The Applicant consistently asked for updates on the processing of the PR Application. In February 2025, he explained that the delay in obtaining PR affected his daughter’s schooling options. [ 6 ] In July 2025, [NAME] provided a more detailed reply about the processing delay, explaining that the allotted space for PRs under the [NAME] had been reduced in 2024-2025 which created a backlog and longer wait times: Anticipated overall and national wait times have recently increased significantly due to a reduction in permanent resident admissions targets from 500,000 to 395,000 in 2025, with further reductions anticipated in 2026. The Government of Quebec determines the number of spaces allotted for the [NAME]. In 2024-25, the allotted space, based on Quebec’s Immigration Plan, was 150 in 2024 and a maximum of 200 in 2025. Unfortunately, when demand exceeds the available space, it creates a backlog, resulting in longer wait times . [ 7 ] At this point, the [NAME] had already turned 18 and now required a security clearance. The Applicant requested [NAME] proceed with the security clearance for his daughter. There is no evidence before me that [NAME] has started the security clearance processing for the [NAME]. In response to the Applicant’s request, in November 2025, [NAME] provided the same response as I have cited above regarding the increase in wait times due to the reduction in the admission range. [ 8 ] At the time that the judicial review was heard, both the Respondent and the Applicant argued that the average processing time for these types of applications under the [NAME] is now approximately 72 months (six years). [ 9 ] Neither party provided evidence of a service standard applicable for these types of PR applications.

III. Analysis A. [NAME] in Admission Target Range in 2024-2025 [ 10 ] The [NAME] includes investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed persons. The Applicant applied as an investor. After he received his Certificat de sélection du Québec [CSQ] in 2018 , he made a non-refundable contribution of CAD 220 000 to a [COMPANY] . [ 11 ] The Minister filed an affidavit from the Assistant Director for the International Platform Branch at National Headquarters of [NAME] ( “Assistant Director” ). The Assistant Director explains the process involved in setting admission ranges for the [NAME] and the allocation of processing spaces at each [NAME] abroad. Attached with her affidavit is Canada’s Immigration Levels plan for 2025-2027 and Québec’s Immigration Plan for 2025. [ 12 ] [NAME] uses the language of "admission targets" for a particular immigration category. I tend to describe it as an "admission range" because in every year there is generally a minimum and maximum target admission number, suggesting an acceptable range of admissions instead of a strict quota. I note that there are no Ministerial Instructions under section 87.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ] applicable to the processing of this program. [ 13 ] Under the Canada-Québec Accord Relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens , the Government of Québec has exclusive jurisdiction over the selection of immigrants to the province based on its criteria (section 12(a)). The federal government, through the [NAME], is still responsible for establishing levels of immigration annually, considering Québec’s advice on how many immigrants it would like to accept (section 10(2) of IRPA ; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 258 at paras 29-31). [ 14 ] In 2025, the federal government established that 395,000 individuals were expected to become permanent residents in Canada, with 34,500 of those individuals coming from the Québec Skilled Worker [NAME]. Québec ’s Immigration Plan intended to admit between 400 and 500 persons into the [NAME] in 2025. As of April 2, 2025, 294 persons were admitted into Canada under this category, with an additional 266 in the landing inventory with 3927 persons in the remaining inventory waiting to be processed. [ 15 ] The targets for [NAME] migration offices abroad are set nationally following the federal government’s Immigration Levels plan and Québec ’s final levels plan. The Assistant Director’s evidence is that “the target is managed centrally and allocated each month to offices with the oldest files and/or for exceptional files with mitigating circumstances that require urgent prioritization” . Her evidence is that each visa post “strives to process applications on a first in, first out basis” . The following factors are considered when setting these targets: the age and the repartition of the inventory in the network, as well as the capacity/resources of each [NAME]. The expectation is that applications are processed at the same pace considering the age of the inventory at each [NAME]. [ 16 ] The Applicant’s file is being processed at the [NAME]. The [NAME] was allocated zero applications for approvals in the [NAME] category for 2025 (up until April 2025) but, according to the evidence of the Assistant Director, this number fluctuates based on approvals and refusals in the overall inventory. B. Test for Mandamus [ 17 ] Mandamus is an equitable remedy used to compel the performance of a public duty. [ADDRESS]’s ability to grant a writ of mandamus is provided for under subsections 18.1(3)(a) and 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act , RSC, 1985, c F-7. The well-established criteria for mandamus are set out in [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 742 (CA), affirmed by [COMPANY]. v. Canada (Attorney General) , 1994 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 1100 [ [NAME] ]: (1) there must be a public legal duty to act; (2) the duty must be owed to the applicant; (3) there must be a clear right to performance of that duty; (4) where the duty sought to be enforced is discretionary, certain additional principles apply; (5) no other adequate remedy is available to the applicant; (6) the order sought will have some practical value or effect; (7) there is no equitable bar to the relief sought; and (8) on a balance of convenience an order of mandamus should be issued. [ 18 ] As recently explained by the Federal Court of Appeal in [NAME] v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee) , 2026 FCA 53 [ [NAME] ] at paragraph 45, the first four criteria serve a different purpose than the remaining four: The first four criteria are considered by the reviewing court to determine whether the applicant has shown that they would be entitled to an order of mandamus . The final four criteria relate to reasons for which the reviewing court should exercise its discretion to deny the remedy to which the applicant would otherwise be entitled. [ 19 ] The parties agree that the key issue in this case is the third [NAME] factor and whether there is a clear right to the performance of the duty. In order to establish this, an applicant must show: i) they have satisfied all the requirements for a decision to be made; ii) they have made a prior request for a decision to be made; and iii) the decision-maker has either expressly refused to make a decision or has unreasonably delayed deciding ( [NAME] at 767). It is this last factor on which the parties do not agree – whether the delay has been unreasonable. [ 20 ] In order to determine whether there is an unreasonable delay, I have to consider three factors [ [NAME]]: i) the delay in question has been longer than the nature of the process required, prima facie ; (ii) the applicant is not responsible for the delay; and (iii) the authority responsible for the delay has not provided a satisfactory justification: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1998 CanLII 9097 (FC) at para 23 [ [NAME] ]. [ 21 ] The Federal Court of Appeal issued their decision in [NAME] , which assessed and clarified the overall structure of the [NAME]  and [NAME]  frameworks, after the judicial review hearing. The parties were provided with the opportunity to address these issues and the impact on this case in written submissions. (1) Delay is Longer than the Process Required [ 22 ] The parties agree that the Applicant is not responsible for the delay. The points of dispute are the first and third [NAME]: whether the delay in question is longer than the process required prima facie and if it is, whether the Minister has provided a satisfactory justification. With respect to both factors, the Minister argues that the delay is attributable to the government’s processing priorities and a significant reduction in the admission numbers by the [NAME] for this PR category. [ 23 ] The Minister’s arguments about the reduction in the admission range justifying the delay is properly considered at the third stage – on whether there has been a satisfactory justification for the delay in the Applicant’s case. I will explain. [ 24 ] At the first stage of the [NAME]  test, the Applicant is required to show that the delay, on its face, is longer than the nature of the process required. [ADDRESS] is considering at this first stage the “time requirements inherent to the administrative proceedings” taking into account: i) the legal and factual complexities of the matters dealt with by the administrative decision-maker; ii) the requirements of a fair process; iii) the purpose of the proceedings; and iv) the rights and interests of the those affected by them ( [NAME]  at para 77). [ 25 ] Significant decreases in the admission ranges for an immigration program are not “inherent to the administrative proceedings” as they are neither inevitable nor predictable. Admission target ranges may significantly increase, decrease or remain unchanged. A fluctuation in the admission numbers is an external factor that may affect processing in a given case and therefore is not inherent to the time requirements of the process. If a decrease in admission ranges is being raised as a justification for the delay, it is the Minister’s burden to demonstrate this – at the third stage – not the Applicant’s ( [NAME]  at para 95). [ 26 ] At the first stage, the nature of the proceeding and the rights and interests at stake must be considered. The application at issue is an economic pathway to permanent residence that facilitates entry into Québec for those willing and able to make a substantial financial investment in the province. While certainly the Applicant has an interest in obtaining permanent residence so that he and his family can permanently settle in Canada, he applied through the [NAME], an overseas economic permanent residency program. There is nothing preventing applicants from applying for visitor, study or work permits while their permanent residence applications are being processed, as the Applicant’s wife and child did in this case. Applicants may also choose to remain in their home country or travel elsewhere while their permanent residence application is being processed. Family reunification, humanitarian considerations and risk factors are generally not considerations in the processing of these types of applications ( [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2025 FC 1832 at para 32). [ 27 ] There is no suggestion that the processing of permanent residence applications for the [NAME] requires a legally or factual complex assessment. No interviews are generally required; standard criminal, security and medical checks are done. [ 28 ] The legislation provides that consistent, prompt and efficient processing are objectives across the immigration programs, including in meeting Canada’s economic goals. Paragraph 3(1)(f) and (f.1) of IRPA  recognize that immigration goals are subject to “consistent standards and prompt processing” , and the integrity of the immigration system is maintained through “the establishment of fair and efficient procedures” . [ 29 ] The record before me does not include a service standard for the processing of [NAME] applications. The average dynamic processing time when the Applicant applied was approximately 44 months. The Applicant has now waited approximately two times the average processing time listed at the time he applied. There are several periods of unexplained delay even where, according to the Minister’s evidence, the admission range was at a higher level. The current average processing time has now increased to approximately 72 months. By the time of the judicial review hearing, the processing of the Applicant’s case had exceeded the current average processing time by approximately a year. [ 30 ] In these circumstances, given the length of the delay, the unexplained inaction, the emphasis on prompt processing in IRPA , and the relevantly straightforward legal and factual assessment required for processing, I am satisfied that the process in the Applicant’s case has taken longer on its face than is required for investor PR applications under the [NAME]. (2) Minister has provided adequate justification for the delay [ 31 ] The remaining question is the third stage of the [NAME]  test that requires the Minister to explain if there is a satisfactory justification for this delay. The Minister argues that the government can set processing priorities and where there is significant reduction in the admission range for a particular category, this will necessarily mean that there will be an increase in processing delays. [ 32 ] I agree that delay may be justified by the Minister setting processing priorities to manage the flow of immigration to Canada “so long as the policies and decisions are made in good faith and are consistent with the purpose, objectives and scheme of IRPA” ( [NAME] at para 107). I note that the Applicant was not arguing the decision by the [NAME], in consultation with the federal government, to reduce admissions for the [NAME] was made in bad faith or was inconsistent with the purpose, objectives and scheme of IRPA . [ 33 ] I am not persuaded that any reduction in the admission range invariably results in longer processing times. Evidence is required to demonstrate that any such reduction has led to an increase in processing times. For example, it may be that a lower admission target reduces the number of people applying, freeing up resources to process the inventory at a faster rate. [ 34 ] I am, however, satisfied that in this case, the significant reduction in the admission range explains the increase in processing delays. There was a significant reduction in the admission range for permanent residents under the [NAME] from 2022 until 2025, with approximately ten times more spaces available for permanent resident admissions in 2022 (approximately 5200) as compared to 2025 (400-500). Further, there is evidence that during this period, the average processing time also increased from approximately 44 months to 72 months. In early 2025, [NAME] notified the Applicant about the increase in wait times due to the drop in the admission spaces. [ 35 ] I also note that the Minister does not argue that the increase in wait times is justified by a scarcity of resources. In other words, even if the Minister deployed more resources to process the applications, the problem of a significantly lower admission range would remain, resulting in applicants waiting for admissions spaces to open. [ 36 ] Certainly, a shortcoming of the Minister’s evidence is the failure to provide more detailed evidence specific to the Applicant’s processing and the place of his PR Application in the processing inventory. The Minister has not provided a detailed explanation of how the reduction in the admission range affected the processing of the Applicant’s PR Application, nor has the Minister explained how much longer the Applicant can expect to wait for a decision ( [NAME] at para 129). [ 37 ] I caution that the failure to provide specific evidence connecting the explanation for the delay to the processing of an applicant’s application may result in the Court finding that the Minister has not adequately justified the delay. Had the delay been of greater magnitude, I may have found that the Minister had not adequately justified the delay for this reason. The reliance on general arguments about reductions in the admission range, without specific evidence of the impact of processing on an applicant’s file, risks insulating unreasonable delays from scrutiny ( [NAME] at para 119). [ 38 ] I find, in these particular circumstances, considering the nature of the rights and interests at stake, the Minister has provided an adequate justification for the delay in light of the following factors: in the context of an already lengthy process, the delay is not significantly longer (approximately a year) than the current average processing time, that the reduction on admissions during the processing of the Applicant’s application was significant and corresponded with increases in the average processing times, and that early on, the Applicant was informed by [NAME] that wait times had increased due to the reduction in the admission range. C. Arguments on Zero Targets in [NAME] [ 39 ] The Applicant argued that mandamus cannot be declined because of the zero admission target at the [NAME]. It was not. I found the Minister provided an adequate justification for the delay in the circumstances of this case. My reasoning would not have changed had the admission target been higher for the [NAME]. The admission target for the [NAME] did not factor into my decision to deny the request to issue mandamus . D. Certified Question [ 40 ] The Applicant proposed the following question for certification under paragraph 74(d) of IRPA: Does the Minister have the statutory authority to set an annual admission target of ‘zero’ for a specific visa office or class, thereby effectively suspending a legislative program without regulatory amendment? [ 41 ] The Minister opposes certification. [ 42 ] In order to be certified as a serious question of general importance, the question must be: (i) dispositive of the appeal; (ii) transcend the interests of the immediate parties to the litigation; and (iii) contemplate an issue of broad significance or general importance ( [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2024 FC 2040 at para 76). [ 43 ] The proposed question is not dispositive. As discussed above, the zero admission target at a particular point in time for the [NAME] was not relevant to my determination that the Minister had adequately justified the delay in this case. I decline to certify.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3720-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is dismissed; and No serious question of general importance is certified. Blank “Lobat Sadrehashemi” blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-3720-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: FEBURARY 12, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: MAY 12, 2026 and MAY 15, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: SADREHASHEMI J DATED: JULY 9, 2026 APPEARANCE : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Québec For The APPLICANT [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent