Immigration Blog

Challenging Unreasonable IRCC Delays in Federal Court

When Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) blames its own backlog for unreasonable delays in processing applications, applicants are not without recourse. Many have turned to the Federal Court for a legal remedy known as a writ of mandamus, which can compel IRCC to make a long-overdue decision. This legal action falls under the court’s authority for Judicial Review, governed by the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) .

The courts have established that while some delay is inherent in the system, it must not be indefinite or unjustified. In several recent cases, the Federal Court has rejected IRCC’s vague explanations. For instance, in Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 181, the Court ruled that "bald or conclusory assertions of ongoing screening" are not a sufficient justification for a 45-month delay. Similarly, in Karakra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 751, a 70-month wait was deemed unreasonable, and generalized excuses about the pandemic were dismissed.

• The Burden of Proof: Once a delay is shown to be significantly longer than average, the burden shifts to IRCC to provide a satisfactory reason.
• Applicant Responsibility: Applicants must prove they have met all requirements under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) l-2.5 and are not the cause of the delay, as seen in the dismissal of Jasmeen Kaur Manes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 80.
• When Delays Are Justified: However, delays caused by orderly processing of high-volume queues, as in the Québec Investor Program case Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1832, may be considered reasonable by the Court.