Yao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) – Federal Court

Immigration applications can take time. However, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) does not have an unlimited period to process an application simply because security screening or another government review remains outstanding.

In Yao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), decided on August 18, 2026, Justice Fothergill of the Federal Court granted an application for mandamus and ordered the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make a decision on Qinglan Yao’s permanent residence application within 90 days.

The decision is particularly important because the Court rejected general explanations that the application remained subject to security screening and a provincial nomination review. The government provided insufficient evidence explaining why those processes required such a lengthy delay.

The case also applies the Federal Court of Appeal’s important 2026 decision in Benison v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53, which clarified the legal test for mandamus and confirmed that an applicant does not have to prove “significant prejudice” caused by the delay.

For applicants who have been waiting years for a Canadian immigration decision, Yao provides an important reminder: IRCC delay must be justified with evidence. A reference to security screening, without meaningful particulars explaining the delay, may not be enough.

What Is a Mandamus Application in Canadian Immigration Law?

A writ of mandamus is a remedy available from the Federal Court that may compel a government authority to perform a legal duty it has failed to perform.

In an immigration context, a mandamus application may be brought where IRCC has failed to make a decision on an application within a reasonable period of time.

Importantly, mandamus generally does not require IRCC to approve an immigration application. Rather, it can require IRCC to make a decision.

Whether a delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances of the individual case. There is no automatic rule that an application becomes eligible for mandamus merely because it has exceeded IRCC’s published processing time.

Background: Qinglan Yao’s Permanent Residence Application

Qinglan Yao is a citizen of China who entered Canada pursuant to a work visa issued on November 21, 2019. She was living in Regina, Saskatchewan with her family.

Ms. Yao applied for permanent residence under the Provincial Nominee Program – Non-Express Entry (PNP non-EE) on December 20, 2021.

By the time the Federal Court considered her case, approximately four years and eight months had passed without a final decision.

This was significantly longer than the published processing period identified in the Court’s reasons. As of July 31, 2024, the estimated processing time for permanent residence applications under the PNP non-Express Entry stream was approximately 11 months.

Ms. Yao commenced her mandamus proceeding in June 2025.

Why Was the Application Delayed?

The Minister argued that the delay was not unreasonable because there were at least two outstanding issues.

First, according to IRCC’s Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes, security screening had been ongoing since October 7, 2024.

Second, on February 3, 2025, the Government of Saskatchewan contacted IRCC and requested that Ms. Yao’s file be placed on hold pending the conclusion of a Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program nomination review.

The problem for the Minister was not merely that these processes existed.

The problem was the lack of evidence explaining them.

Justice Fothergill noted that the Minister’s evidence provided no particulars explaining why the security screening had not been completed.

Similarly, there was no meaningful evidence explaining:

• the nature of Saskatchewan’s investigation;
• what the investigation concerned;
• why it remained outstanding; or
• how much longer it might take.

That lack of evidence became an important factor in the Court’s decision.

Security Screening Does Not Automatically Justify an Immigration Delay

One of the most important aspects of Yao concerns IRCC’s reliance on security screening.

The Court referred to Sowane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 224, where the Federal Court held that general or “blanket” statements attributing delay to pending security assessments may be inadequate.

The Court in Sowane relied on a substantial line of Federal Court jurisprudence, including:

• Ghaddar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 946
• Bidgoly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 283
• Almuhtadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 712
• Kanthasamyiyar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1248
• Abdolkhaleghi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 729

Together, these cases demonstrate an important principle in immigration mandamus litigation:

The government cannot necessarily justify years of delay simply by stating that security screening is pending.

Where the Minister relies upon security screening to explain a lengthy delay, the Court may examine whether there is actual evidence demonstrating why the screening has taken so long and whether the particular application involves complexity or security concerns that justify the delay.

Sowane v. Canada: Evidence of Complexity Matters

Justice Fothergill specifically relied on Justice Gascon’s reasoning in Sowane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 224.

The Court recognized that some immigration applications are more complicated than others and therefore reasonably require additional processing time.

However, if the government relies on the complexity of a particular application to justify delay, there should be evidence supporting that position.

In Ms. Yao’s case, the Minister provided no evidence demonstrating that her permanent residence application was particularly complex or that it raised specific inadmissibility concerns.

The Court observed that the Minister could have addressed these matters through evidence but did not do so.

This distinction is important.

The existence of security screening is one thing.

Evidence explaining why security screening reasonably requires years to complete in the particular applicant’s circumstances is another.

The Mandamus Test: Apotex and Benison

The traditional test for mandamus comes from Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA).

The Federal Court of Appeal recently reconsidered and clarified the application of that test in:

Benison v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53.

The eight Apotex considerations are generally:

1. There must be a public legal duty to act.
2. The duty must be owed to the applicant.
3. The applicant must have a clear right to performance of the duty, including satisfying applicable conditions and establishing a demand for performance followed by a refusal or unreasonable delay.
4. Where the duty is discretionary, the applicable requirements concerning that discretion must be satisfied.
5. There must be no other adequate remedy.
6. The order must have practical value or effect.
7. There must be no equitable bar preventing the remedy.
8. The balance of convenience must favour granting the order.

Benison Changed the Framework for Mandamus Applications

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Benison, 2026 FCA 53 is particularly significant for immigration delay cases.

The Court of Appeal clarified that the eight Apotex considerations should not simply be treated as eight identical hurdles placed on the applicant.

Instead, the first four criteria concern whether grounds for mandamus have been established.

Once those requirements are established, the applicant is prima facie entitled to mandamus.

The remaining considerations concern potential discretionary reasons why the Court might nevertheless decline to grant the remedy.

This clarification is important because it provides a more structured framework for determining who bears the practical burden regarding the different components of a mandamus application.

Recent commentary on Benison has similarly recognized it as an important clarification of Canadian mandamus law.

Applicants Do Not Have to Prove “Significant Prejudice”

Another particularly important aspect of Benison applied in Yao is the treatment of prejudice.

Historically, some mandamus cases considered whether an immigration applicant had demonstrated “significant prejudice” resulting from the delay.

The Federal Court of Appeal clarified in Benison that an applicant does not have to establish significant prejudice as an additional requirement for demonstrating unreasonable delay.

This does not mean that hardship is irrelevant.

Evidence concerning the effect of the delay may still be relevant when the Court considers discretionary factors, including the balance of convenience.

The distinction can be very important in practice.

An applicant should not necessarily lose a mandamus application simply because they cannot prove extraordinary financial, medical or psychological consequences resulting from the delay.

The Impact of the Delay on Ms. Yao and Her Family

Although significant prejudice was not a mandatory element of the mandamus test, Ms. Yao provided considerable evidence concerning the effect that the lengthy processing period had on her family.

According to her affidavit, her family had been pursuing immigration to Regina since 2020 and had committed substantial financial resources to establishing themselves in Canada.

They had:

• established a new business;
• purchased a home;
• purchased a vehicle; and
• built their lives in Canada while waiting for their immigration status to be finalized.

Ms. Yao also described serious family emergencies.

Her parents experienced significant health problems while the family’s immigration situation remained unresolved. According to the evidence before the Court, the family was unable to travel to assist them at certain times because work visas had not yet been issued.

Ms. Yao also described the emotional consequences of prolonged separation from her extended family.

While this evidence was not required to establish “significant prejudice” as a separate legal requirement after Benison, it remained relevant to the Court’s consideration of the overall circumstances and balance of convenience.

Would Mandamus Interfere With Security Screening?

The Minister argued that ordering a decision could force the government to abbreviate or truncate its security assessment.

Justice considered Vadiati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1056.

In Vadiati, Justice Battista explained that granting mandamus would not necessarily prevent the government from addressing security inadmissibility.

The broader point is important: the existence of an ongoing security investigation does not automatically defeat a mandamus application.

The Court must consider the circumstances of the particular case, including the length of the delay, the explanation for it, the evidence supporting that explanation, and the impact of continuing the delay.

Federal Court Orders IRCC to Decide Within 90 Days

Ms. Yao asked the Court to require the Minister to decide her permanent residence application within 30, 60, or 90 days.

The Minister proposed a period of four to six months, citing the need to communicate with Saskatchewan and security partners.

Justice Fothergill concluded that Ms. Yao satisfied the first four Apotex requirements and that there was no discretionary bar preventing the Court from granting mandamus.

The Court therefore granted the application.

The Minister was ordered to make a decision on Ms. Yao’s PNP non-Express Entry permanent residence application within 90 days of the judgment.

What Yao Means for Applicants Facing Long IRCC Delays

Yao does not mean that every application exceeding IRCC’s estimated processing time will qualify for mandamus.

It does, however, reinforce several important principles.

First, IRCC processing times are not unlimited.

Second, a lengthy security assessment does not necessarily provide a complete answer to a mandamus application.

Third, where the government relies on security screening, complexity, provincial review or another investigation to justify an extraordinary delay, the Court may expect meaningful evidence explaining the reason for that delay.

Fourth, following Benison, an applicant does not need to establish “significant prejudice” as a separate prerequisite for obtaining mandamus.

Finally, mandamus is generally about compelling the government to make a decision. It is not an order requiring IRCC to approve the underlying immigration application.

Is Your Canadian Immigration Application Delayed?

If your permanent residence, citizenship, work permit, study permit, sponsorship or other Canadian immigration application has remained pending for an unusually long period, it may be appropriate to assess whether the delay has become unreasonable and whether a Federal Court mandamus application should be considered.

The strength of a mandamus case depends on the individual circumstances, including:

• how long the application has been pending;
• the normal or expected processing period;
• what steps IRCC has taken;
• whether security or background screening is outstanding;
• whether IRCC has provided a meaningful explanation for the delay;
• whether the applicant has made inquiries or demanded a decision;
• whether the applicant has complied with IRCC requests; and
• whether another adequate remedy is available.

A delay beyond the published processing time does not automatically establish a right to mandamus. Each case requires an assessment of the evidence and applicable Federal Court jurisprudence.

Contact YA Law Corporation

If your Canadian immigration application has been delayed and you would like to determine whether a mandamus application to the Federal Court may be appropriate, contact YA Law Corporation.

YA Law Corporation
Immigration & Federal Court Matters
Telephone: 604-620-9598
Email: admin@yalaw.ca
Website: www.yalaw.ca

Cases Referred to in Yao

Yao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) — Federal Court, August 18, 2026

Benison v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53 — Federal Court of Appeal clarification of the Apotex mandamus framework and confirmation that significant prejudice is not an independent requirement. The decision has been recognized as an important clarification of the law governing mandamus.

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA) — Established the traditional criteria governing mandamus.

Sowane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 224 — General assertions that security screening remains outstanding may be inadequate to justify prolonged delay.

Ghaddar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 946 — Cited in relation to explanations based on pending security assessments.

Bidgoly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 283 — Cited concerning the adequacy of explanations for security-related delay.

Almuhtadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 712 — Part of the jurisprudence addressing prolonged immigration processing and security screening.

Kanthasamyiyar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1248 — Cited regarding security screening and unreasonable delay.

Abdolkhaleghi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 729 — Earlier Federal Court authority addressing delay attributed to security screening.

Vadiati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1056 — Considered whether mandamus would improperly interfere with an ongoing security investigation.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Visa rules, appointment availability and pilot-program procedures may change. Applicants should confirm current requirements before proceeding.