Immigration Blog

Navigating Unreasonable IRCC Delays

For many immigration applicants in Canada, the phrase “your security check is still pending” has become a symbol of endless waiting and uncertainty. While IRCC has a duty to conduct thorough checks under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) l-2.5, this is not a blank cheque for indefinite delays. When processing times stretch for years beyond the norm, applicants can turn to the Federal Court for a powerful remedy known as a writ of mandamus.

Through Judicial Review, the Court examines whether IRCC’s inaction is reasonable. A growing body of case law demonstrates that the Court will not accept vague or “blanket statements” as a valid justification for delay. As seen in cases like Saqib Javed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 987 and Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 181, the burden is on IRCC to provide a specific and satisfactory explanation for why a security check is taking an unusually long time. Failure to do so often results in the Court ordering a final decision within a set timeframe, typically 90 days.

However, this remedy is not guaranteed. The Court will not intervene if the delay is justified by genuine, complex security concerns, as in Naeemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 550, or if the applicant has caused the delay themselves. Ultimately, these legal challenges highlight a critical principle: administrative bodies must be accountable and transparent.

• Key Insight 1: Vague excuses about security checks are insufficient; IRCC must provide the Federal Court with a substantive reason for the delay.
• Key Insight 2: A mandamus order compels a decision, it does not guarantee an approval. It is a tool to end administrative inaction.
• Key Insight 3: Applicants must ensure they have met all their own obligations before challenging an IRCC delay in court.