Security Screening Delay in 2026? How Mandamus Forces IRCC to Decide

You’ve submitted your application, met every requirement, and waited patiently. But months turn into years, and your file remains stuck in the black box of “security screening.” This limbo is more than just a waiting game; it’s a period of profound uncertainty that can stall careers, separate families, and put lives on hold. The core of Canada's immigration system, governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) l-2.5, includes objectives of fairness and timely processing. When that system fails to deliver a decision, what can you do?

For many applicants, the answer lies in the Federal Court of Canada. A legal tool known as a writ of mandamus is designed specifically for this situation. It’s not an appeal of a refusal, but a request to the Court to order Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to do its job: make a decision. This article explores the legal journey from application to judicial intervention, revealing how the courts scrutinize unexplained delays, especially those attributed to security screening.

The Legal Foundation Behind IRCC Decisions

Why Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) l-2.5 matters

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) l-2.5, or IRPA, is the master blueprint for Canadian immigration. It establishes the rules for who can come to Canada and outlines the grounds on which someone might be found inadmissible, including security concerns. This is the legal authority that allows an officer to conduct a thorough review of an applicant's background.

In plain language: This Act gives IRCC the power to select and admit newcomers but also to screen them for potential risks to Canada's safety and security. While this power is essential, it isn't unlimited. The Act implicitly requires that this process be conducted in a reasonable timeframe.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: The Federal Court looks to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) l-2.5 to determine the scope of IRCC's duties. When an applicant seeks a mandamus order, the court assesses whether IRCC's prolonged inaction frustrates the objectives of the very Act that gives it authority.

Why Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) matters

If IRPA is the 'what,' the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) is the 'how.' It grants the Federal Court the jurisdiction to supervise federal bodies like IRCC. This is the law that empowers a judge to issue an order of mandamus, compelling a government official to perform a public legal duty they have failed to carry out.

In plain language: This Act creates an oversight mechanism. It ensures that government departments don't have unchecked power and can be held accountable for unreasonable delays or failures to act.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: The Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) , along with the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) , provides the legal and procedural path for an applicant to bring their case before a judge and seek a remedy for IRCC's inaction.

How IRCC Policies Shape Real Applications

How Additional information to consider under A34-37 fits into the legal framework

This internal IRCC policy translates the broad inadmissibility grounds in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) l-2.5 into concrete instructions for officers. It guides them on how to apply the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard when assessing an applicant for security (A34) or criminality (A36) concerns. This is the operational core of the security screening process.

In everyday terms: When an officer flags a file for security screening, they are following this policy. They are looking for information that gives them more than a mere suspicion, but less than proof on a balance of probabilities, that a person might be inadmissible. This can involve extensive checks with partner agencies.

Where things often go wrong: The problem arises when this process becomes a justification for indefinite delay. While the screening itself is authorized, IRCC cannot use it as a “blank cheque” for inaction. An applicant is left in the dark, often for years, with no explanation for why the process is taking so long.

How Decision making: Standard of review and process for making a reasonable decision fits into the legal framework

This policy is about the end of the line: making a final decision. It instructs officers to ensure their decisions are justified, transparent, and intelligible, with reasons that show a rational chain of analysis. The ultimate failure of this policy is when no decision is made at all.

In everyday terms: This policy is IRCC's internal reminder to 'show its work.' A decision should make sense based on the evidence provided. A prolonged security screening delay without any communication or progress is the antithesis of this principle, as there is no transparency or justification offered to the applicant.

Where things often go wrong: When a file languishes in security screening for years, it represents a breakdown in this decision-making process. The duty to make a reasonable decision includes the duty to make it within a reasonable time. When this fails, applicants are forced to turn to the Federal Court.

When Policy Meets Reality in the Federal Court

The tension between IRCC’s duty to screen applicants and its obligation to process applications in a timely manner is frequently resolved in the Federal Court. A mandamus application forces IRCC to explain itself, and often, the explanation is found wanting.

In Saqib Javed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 987, an applicant for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker stream had been waiting for 49 months-nearly eight times the standard processing time. IRCC’s justification for this massive security screening delay was simply that security checks were ongoing. The Federal Court was not persuaded, granting the mandamus application and ordering a decision within 90 days. The judge explicitly called out IRCC’s argument for what it was:

The Respondent's 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 (Sowane v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 224 at para 29).

Expert insight: This case is a powerful reminder that IRCC bears the burden of providing a 'satisfactory justification' for delays. Vague references to security checks are not enough. The Court expects specific explanations for why a file has been stalled for so long.

Similarly, in AMIRHOSSEIN MAJIDI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 680, a dentist and inventor in the Start-Up Visa class saw his application delayed for years. The hold-up was a security screening for a family member of a co-applicant. Again, the Court found IRCC's justification to be a mere “blanket statement” that deprived the Court of its ability to assess whether the length of the review was reasonable. A decision was ordered within 90 days.

Expert insight: Mandamus is a preventative tool. Its purpose is to compel action *before* an applicant suffers the extreme hardship that can result from endless waiting. As the Court noted in another case, requiring proof of prejudice would “perversely, require a level of hardship that mandamus is specifically intended to prevent” (SURINDER MOHAN SHARMA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 796).

However, the path to a mandamus order is not always clear. The court will dismiss an application if the delay is deemed reasonable, especially when national security is a valid concern. In Cheloei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 820, an Iranian citizen's visitor visa was delayed due to security screening related to his past mandatory service in the IRGC. The Court found the 18-month delay was not unreasonable given the specific security context and dismissed the application.

Expert insight: This shows that the context of the security screening matters. While a blanket statement is insufficient, a delay linked to specific, recognized security concerns (like service in a particular organization) may be considered justified by the Court.

Key Lessons

• Security Checks Are Not a Blank Cheque: While IRCC has the authority to conduct security screening, the Federal Court has repeatedly stated this does not justify indefinite delays. IRCC must provide a satisfactory explanation.
• Blanket Statements are Insufficient: Simply stating that an application is “undergoing security screening” is not a valid legal justification for years of inaction. The courts require more substance.
• You Don’t Always Need to Prove Hardship: Many recent Federal Court decisions have affirmed that for a mandamus order, the focus is on the unreasonableness of the delay itself, not necessarily on proving “significant prejudice” to the applicant.
• Context is Key: A delay may be justified if it is linked to specific and complex security concerns, as seen in cases involving certain military or government affiliations. However, the burden remains on IRCC to explain this linkage.
• Mandamus is a Powerful Tool: For applicants lost in a security screening delay with no end in sight, filing an application for Judicial Review to seek a writ of mandamus is often the most effective-and sometimes the only-way to force a final decision.

If your application has been caught in a prolonged security screening delay, you are not without options. The legal framework provides a pathway to accountability. Understanding how the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) l-2.5 and the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) intersect, and seeing how judges have interpreted IRCC’s duties, can empower you to take the next step. Seeking experienced legal guidance can help you navigate the process of Judicial Review and finally get the decision you deserve.