Moghadam v. Canada: Court Rules Scheduled Interview Doesn’t Moot 52-Month PR Delay Claim, Mandates 90-Day Resolution—Security Screening Insufficient Justification

Moghadam v. Canada: Court Rules Scheduled Interview Doesn’t Moot 52-Month PR Delay Claim, Mandates 90-Day Resolution—Security Screening Insufficient Justification

Summary: On 2025-07-25, the Federal Court held that a late-stage interview notice does not moot a mandamus application challenging a 52-month delay in a family sponsorship permanent residence case. Justice Manson ordered IRCC to finalize the application within 90 days, finding that generic security screening explanations do not justify such prolonged delay where all preconditions were met. Date: 2025-07-25 | Source: Court Decision | Program Affected: Sponsorship In a significant clarification on delay and mootness, the Federal Court ruled that scheduling an interview—here, set for August 5, 2025, and notified on July 23, 2025—does not extinguish an applicant’s right to seek mandamus compelling a decision on a long-delayed permanent residence application. Justice Manson found that the applicants remained entitled to judicial relief where the delay, from completeness in February 2021 to the present, remained unreasonable and unexplained. The Court emphasized that ongoing security screening, without specific, case-linked justification, is insufficient to excuse an inordinate delay in family reunification cases once prerequisites are satisfied. Reaffirming the duty to decide within a reasonable timeframe (typically 36 months), the Court granted mandamus and directed IRCC to process the file within 90 days, notwithstanding the late procedural step of scheduling an interview. Legally, the decision aligns with Conille (1999 FC) and Jahantigh (2023 FC) on unreasonable delay and advances a novel mootness analysis: last-minute procedural activity by IRCC does not negate judicial oversight where delay remains egregious. For immigration consultants and counsel, this sets a clear enforcement benchmark and preserves access to mandamus even mid-litigation if the delay is unjustified. Independent analysis:
- Positive impacts:
- Strengthens accountability for timely PR processing and supports family reunification.
- Clarifies that interview scheduling alone cannot forestall court-ordered timelines.
- Establishes a practical 90-day compliance window, aiding case strategy.
- Potential concerns:
- May prompt increased litigation pressure on IRCC, with resource and triage implications.
- Requires more detailed, file-specific security screening rationales to withstand scrutiny, raising operational burdens.
- Could create expectation of 36-month outer limits without accounting for exceptional, well-documented complexities. This ruling provides a clear roadmap: where delays exceed reasonable norms and explanations are generic, mandamus remains available, and late procedural steps will not moot the claim.

Tags: Federal Court, mandamus, IRCC, Canadian immigration, permanent residence, family sponsorship, unreasonable delay, security screening, mootness, Justice Manson, Conille, Jahantigh, IRPA, processing times, judicial review, court decision