What To Do When Your Application's Processing Time is Taking More Than the Publish Time

Waiting for a decision on your Canadian immigration application can be one of the most stressful periods of your life. You check the IRCC website, note the published processing time, and mark your calendar. But what happens when that date comes and goes, and you’re left in a state of indefinite uncertainty? When your application’s processing time is taking more than the publish time, it’s not just frustrating; it can feel like your future is on hold. Fortunately, the Canadian legal system provides a powerful tool for these situations: an application for an order of mandamus to the Federal Court.

This is not about asking the Court to approve your application, but rather to compel Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to simply do its job and make a decision. Through a process called Judicial Review, the Court examines whether IRCC's inaction amounts to an unreasonable delay. A series of recent Federal Court decisions tells a powerful story about how and when the judiciary will step in to break the deadlock.

The Unspoken Duty: Why IRCC Can't Delay Indefinitely

While Canadian immigration law gives officers discretion in making decisions, it does not grant them the power to delay indefinitely. There is an implicit public law duty to render decisions within a reasonable timeframe. Published processing times on IRCC's website, while not legally binding guarantees, create a benchmark. When an application languishes for months or even years beyond this benchmark without a clear and compelling reason, the delay can be considered legally unreasonable. This is the point where an applicant can seek judicial intervention to get their file moving again.

When Waiting Becomes Unreasonable: The Federal Court Steps In

Numerous applicants, from skilled workers and sponsored family members to entrepreneurs and citizenship applicants, have found themselves in this exact predicament. Their stories, reviewed by the Federal Court, reveal a consistent pattern: significant, unexplained delays are not acceptable. The court's primary tool to correct this is the writ of mandamus, a court order compelling a government body to perform its legal duty.

Establishing the Threshold for Unreasonable Delay

The Federal Court has repeatedly affirmed that when a processing time is taking more than the publish time, the burden shifts to IRCC to justify it. Vague excuses are consistently rejected.

In Peng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2, a Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) applicant waited over three years. The Court granted a mandamus order, noting that IRCC had provided “hardly any justification at all” for the delay, which was more than triple the average processing time. Similarly, in Donzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 154, a 40-month wait for a family sponsorship application that should have taken 12 months was found unreasonable. The judge stated, “this does not supersede the previous delay incurred without any justification.”

This principle extends across various categories. A start-up visa application delayed 62 months in Tousi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 671, a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application pending for 70 months in Karakra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 751, and a family sponsorship delayed 52 months in Moghadam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1339 all resulted in the Court ordering IRCC to make a decision within a set timeframe.

The “Security Screening” Defence and Its Limits

IRCC often argues that delays are necessary for security screening. While the Court recognizes the importance of these checks, it will not accept them as a blank cheque for indefinite waiting.

In Saqib Javed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 987, an Express Entry application was delayed 49 months. The Court was unimpressed with IRCC's justification, calling the submission that security checks were ongoing a “blanket statement that this Court has consistently held to be inadequate.” A similar outcome occurred in Almasi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC1377, where a citizenship application was stalled for years. The Court noted the file simply stated “security remains under review” without any real explanation, which was not a satisfactory justification.

The Court's patience wears particularly thin with extreme delays. A citizenship application suspended for over six years in Alasmar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1260 was deemed unreasonable because the evidence showed the investigation was “languishing.” In the extraordinary case of Mohammad Jahazi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2024 FC 2072, a ten-year delay was found “unreasonable and unjustified,” leading the Court to award costs against the government.

When is a Delay Justified?

Not every long wait is legally unreasonable. The Court will consider the specific circumstances and whether the applicant has contributed to the delay. In Mahboobehsadat Emadi v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1316, a mandamus application was dismissed because the delay was caused by the applicant’s spouse being unavailable for a mandatory interview. As the Court noted, “the power to satisfy this requirement is entirely in the Applicant's hands.”

Similarly, complex security concerns can provide a valid justification. In Cheloei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 820, an 18-month delay for a visitor visa was deemed not unreasonable because the applicant had prior mandatory service in the IRGC, and the record showed IRCC was actively taking steps to move the application forward.

Key Lessons

• Your diligence matters: The Court consistently notes when applicants have been compliant, responded to requests promptly, and are not responsible for the delay. Keep meticulous records of all communications.
• IRCC must provide real reasons: Blanket statements about high volume, COVID-19 backlogs, or “pending security checks” are increasingly seen as insufficient justification for extreme delays.
• Judicial Review gets results: Many court decisions, such as in the case of A.R. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 236, explicitly note that IRCC only took action after legal proceedings were initiated. Filing for mandamus can be the catalyst that forces a decision.
• The type of application matters: Delays in family reunification and cases involving children are often scrutinized more closely, as seen in A.R. and Moghadam.
• Mandamus is not automatic: The remedy is discretionary. The Court weighs the length of the delay, the justification provided, the complexity of the case, and whether the applicant has contributed to the problem.

If your application’s processing time is taking more than the publish time and you are receiving no meaningful updates from IRCC, you are not without options. The Federal Court serves as a crucial backstop against administrative inertia. Seeking expert legal guidance can help you understand if a mandamus application is the right step to take to finally get the decision you have been waiting for.