Beyond Reasonable: When Immigration Delays Push Applicants to Federal Court

Waiting for a decision on a Canadian immigration application can feel like an eternity. You check the portal daily, your life is on hold, and the silence from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is deafening. But when does a long wait cross the line from frustrating to legally unreasonable? This is a question Canada's Federal Court answers time and again, and the stories behind these decisions reveal a powerful tool for applicants: the order of mandamus.

A mandamus order is a legal remedy where the Court compels a government body, like IRCC, to perform its duty-in this case, to make a decision. Let's walk through the real-life stories of applicants who found themselves in this exact situation, and what the Court had to say.

The Weight of Waiting: Stories of Unreasonable Delay

Imagine applying for permanent residence, your future in Canada hanging in the balance, and years go by with no answer. This was the reality for numerous applicants who turned to the Federal Court for help.

In Peng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2, an applicant under the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) had been waiting for over three years. IRCC's justification was thin, pointing to her 'lengthy immigration history'. The Court wasn't convinced, stating, "not only has 'the authority responsible...not provided satisfactory justification'-it has provided hardly any justification at all." A decision was ordered within 90 days.

The story was similar for a family sponsorship application in Donzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 154, which was stuck for over 40 months. Even though the file had recently started moving, the judge noted that this progress "does not supersede the previous delay incurred without any justification." Again, the Court ordered a decision within 90 days.

These delays aren't limited to one program. We see it in humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) cases, like Karakra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 751, where a family with five Canadian-born children waited 70 months. It appeared in an Express Entry application in Saqib Javed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 987, which was delayed for 49 months-eight times the norm. In each case, the Court found the delays unreasonable and compelled IRCC to act.

"Security Checks" is Not a Magic Word

One of the most common reasons cited for delay is ongoing security screening. While necessary, the Federal Court has made it clear that this isn't a blank cheque for indefinite waiting.

Relevant Policy: Additional information to consider under A34-37

IRCC's internal policies outline the process for security and criminality screening under sections A34 to A37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). When concerns arise, applications can be transferred to a specialized unit. This is a crucial step for Canada's security, but it must be done with diligence.

Read the official policy

Why this matters: This policy highlights the internal machinery of security reviews. The courts scrutinize whether IRCC is actively managing this process or simply letting files sit idle. As seen in the Javed case, the Court declared that a "bare submission that the GCMS notes show ongoing security checks is the kind of blanket statement that this Court has consistently held to be inadequate." This sentiment was echoed in cases involving citizenship, start-up visas, and ministerial relief, where delays of five, and even ten years, were deemed unreasonable despite pending checks.

When Mandamus is Denied: Important Lessons

Not every delay results in a court order. The reasons for dismissal are just as instructive for applicants.

In Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 388, a spousal sponsorship application was delayed for years due to security screening. The Court found IRCC’s justification for the delay was weak. However, the applicant’s case was dismissed because he failed to provide specific evidence of the hardship caused by the wait. The Court noted his affidavit was too vague, stating it was "not sufficient to meet the Applicant's burden of demonstrating significant prejudice."

Expert insight: This is a critical lesson. While some recent cases, like Sharma and Tousi, have clarified that proving 'significant prejudice' is not always a strict requirement for mandamus, providing clear, concrete evidence of how the delay is affecting your life, family, and business can significantly strengthen your case.

A mandamus application was also dismissed in Cheloei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 820. Here, a visitor visa was delayed due to security screening related to the applicant's past military service with the IRGC. The Court found that given the specific security context, the 18-month delay was not unreasonable, as IRCC was actively taking steps to move the application forward.

Finally, your own actions matter. In Contreras Monterroso v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 170, a mandamus application was dismissed because the original sponsorship application was deemed incomplete. You can't compel a decision on an application that wasn't properly filed in the first place.

Key Lessons from the Court

These stories, woven together, offer a clear picture of how the Federal Court views immigration delays:

• Long Periods of Inactivity are a Red Flag: Even without a set processing time, the Court can deem a delay unreasonable if there are long, unexplained stretches of inactivity, as seen in A.R. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 236. The judge there noted that progress only seemed to happen when judicial proceedings began.
• Justification is on IRCC: The burden is on IRCC to provide a satisfactory reason for a long delay. Vague statements about 'background checks' or 'high caseloads' are rarely enough.
• Your Compliance Matters: Diligently responding to all requests from IRCC strengthens your position and shifts the onus to them to process your file efficiently.
• Judicial Review is a Catalyst: Filing for mandamus often prompts action on a stalled file. It forces a timeline and brings accountability to the process.

If you're stuck in an immigration limbo, these cases show that you have options. While every situation is unique, the Federal Court has consistently affirmed that applicants have a right to a timely decision, and when that right is ignored without good reason, justice can-and will-intervene.