How Long Is Too Long for an IRCC Security Screening Delay?

For many applicants, the journey to Canada is a marathon of paperwork, patience, and hope. After meticulously preparing and submitting an application, the waiting begins. But what happens when weeks turn into months, and months stretch into years, with the only explanation being a vague reference to an “ongoing security screening”? It’s a frustrating and isolating experience that leaves families and futures in limbo. The core question applicants face is a difficult one: How long is too long for an IRCC security screening delay?

While every applicant’s file is unique, the law provides a pathway to an answer through the Federal Court of Canada. The process of Judicial Review, and specifically an application for an order of “mandamus,” is designed to address unreasonable government inaction. By examining real court cases, we can trace the line between a necessary, diligent security check and an unjustified delay that demands a legal remedy.

The Legal Foundation Behind IRCC Decisions

Why the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Matters

The IRPA is the cornerstone of Canada's immigration system. It establishes the legal authority for officers to examine, approve, or refuse applications and outlines the grounds for inadmissibility, including security concerns. IRPA creates the legal duty for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to process applications.

In plain language: This Act gives IRCC the power and responsibility to screen every applicant to ensure they do not pose a risk to Canada. This is where the authority for security screening comes from.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: When IRCC fails to carry out its duty to make a decision in a reasonable time, applicants can argue that the department is not fulfilling its obligations under the IRPA. The Federal Court reviews whether IRCC's inaction is a breach of this statutory duty.

Why the Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29) Matters

For those applying to become Canadian citizens, the Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29) governs the entire process. It sets out the requirements for a grant of citizenship and also contains provisions that allow for the suspension of processing if an applicant is under investigation for matters that could render them inadmissible or ineligible.

In plain language: This law defines the path to citizenship and gives officials the power to pause an application if security or criminal concerns arise. However, this power is not unlimited.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: The Court can scrutinize whether a suspension under the Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29) is truly “necessary” and if the underlying investigation is being conducted diligently. An indefinite suspension without active investigation can be deemed unreasonable.

When Policy Meets Reality in the Federal Court

The duty to screen applicants, rooted in legislation, translates into real-world waiting for applicants. When that wait becomes excessive, the Federal Court is asked to intervene. The story of how long is too long is best told through the experiences of those who have challenged their delays.

The Burden on IRCC to Justify Delays

A common thread in successful mandamus applications is IRCC’s failure to provide a meaningful reason for the delay. An applicant in an Express Entry stream found himself waiting 49 months-eight times the standard processing time. IRCC’s explanation was simply that security checks were ongoing.

The Court found this was not enough. As stated in Saqib Javed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 987, 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.” The Court ordered a decision within 90 days, reinforcing that the burden is on IRCC to provide a satisfactory justification.

This principle was echoed in the case of an Ontario PNP applicant waiting 45 months. In Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 181, the Court was clear that while security screening is important, it has consistently rejected bald or conclusory assertions of ongoing screening as a sufficient justification for prolonged delay.

When Security Concerns Are a Valid Reason for Delay

However, the Court does not grant mandamus automatically. If IRCC can provide specific, credible evidence of complex security concerns, the delay may be found to be justified, even if it is very long. A former Afghan diplomat and governor applied for spousal sponsorship and waited five years, arguing the delay was unreasonable.

The Federal Court disagreed. In Naeemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 550, the Court dismissed the mandamus application, finding that specific, well-evidenced security concerns justified the delay. As the Court explained, the record “demonstrates serious security concerns with respect to Mr. Naeemi, given his background, justifying the need for and length of the security screening process and the resulting delay” (at para 2). Where IRCC can point to concrete, file-specific concerns rather than a boilerplate “ongoing screening” line, even a multi-year delay can be reasonable.

Similarly, an Iranian applicant for a visitor visa with prior mandatory service in the IRGC faced an 18-month delay. The Court in Cheloei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 820 found the delay was not unreasonable, given the necessary security screenings associated with his background and evidence that IRCC was actively working on the file.

The Applicant's Role in the Delay

An applicant's right to a timely decision is not absolute; it comes with the responsibility to cooperate. An applicant for a PhD in aerospace engineering challenged a processing delay on his study permit, but had not responded to a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) from IRCC.

The applicant’s own conduct matters too. In Pakatchian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 759, the Court found that failure fatal to the mandamus application. As Justice McVeigh put it, it was “fatal to this application that the Applicant has not responded to the PFL … yet has argued that it is unreasonable that a decision has not been made,” because the letter “was sent to allow the Applicant to answer concerns … required for a security assessment, which is a sufficient justification for the delay” (at para 25). By not engaging with IRCC’s concerns, the applicant had not satisfied a precondition for a decision.

This principle also applies to citizenship applications. In Jasmeen Kaur Manes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 80, an applicant waited nearly eight years but had failed to provide requested documents for a significant portion of that time. The Court found she had caused her own delay and dismissed her case.

Unreasonable Suspensions and Questionable Conduct

Sometimes, a delay is not just passive waiting but an active suspension of processing. A family had their citizenship applications suspended for over six years due to an “intelligence investigation” that appeared to be languishing. The Court in Alasmar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1260 found the suspension had continued longer than necessary and was outside reasonable bounds, ordering a final decision.

In a particularly striking case, a protected person waited over six years for a decision on his permanent residence application. Just before his court hearing, IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter raising serious security concerns, only to resolve them in less than two weeks. The Court in Gunaseelan Savirimuthu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1957 not only ordered a decision but also took the rare step of awarding substantial costs against the government, noting “legitimate concerns about the motivations behind the letter.”

Key Lessons

• Justification is Key: The central question is not just how long the IRCC security screening delay has been, but whether IRCC can provide a satisfactory justification for it. Blanket statements about “ongoing screening” are often not enough.
• Complexity Matters: Delays for applicants with backgrounds in government, military, or sensitive research fields are more likely to be considered reasonable by the Court, provided IRCC can show the screening is active and necessary.
• Cooperation is Mandatory: Applicants must fulfill their end of the bargain. Failing to respond to document requests or Procedural Fairness Letters will almost certainly defeat a claim of unreasonable delay.
• Mandamus is Powerful but Not Automatic: A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. The court carefully balances the applicant's right to a decision against the government's duty to protect Canada's security.
• Unfair Tactics Can Have Consequences: While rare, courts can and will penalize IRCC for questionable conduct, such as issuing last-minute, meritless letters that cause applicants unnecessary cost and distress.

Navigating an excessive IRCC security screening delay can feel overwhelming. However, the principles established under the IRPA and clarified through numerous Federal Court decisions show that you are not without recourse. Understanding the difference between a reasonable wait and an unreasonable one is the first step toward reclaiming control of your immigration journey. If your application is lost in a black hole of security screening, seeking expert legal guidance can help determine if a Judicial Review is the right path to finally get the answer you deserve.