Spousal PR Stuck 7 Years on Security Screening? Court Forced IRCC

Waiting for a decision on a spousal sponsorship application is one of the most stressful periods in an immigrant’s life. You’ve submitted everything, followed the rules, and now you wait, hoping for the news that will unite your family in Canada. But what happens when the wait stretches from months into years, with no end in sight? When your file is flagged for security screening, it can feel like your life is paused indefinitely. This is not just an inconvenience; it’s a profound emotional and financial strain that undermines the very goal of family reunification.

For many, the only path forward is to seek an extraordinary remedy from the Federal Court of Canada. When Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) fails to make a decision in a reasonable time, applicants can ask the Court for a “writ of mandamus”, a powerful order compelling the government to do its job. Recent court decisions shed light on when a delay becomes unreasonable and how the justice system holds IRCC accountable, particularly when a spousal PR is stuck in security screening.

The Legal Foundation of Immigration Decisions and Delays

The entire Canadian immigration system is built on a framework of laws that grant authority to IRCC but also set expectations for how that authority is used. When those expectations aren't met, the same legal framework provides a pathway for applicants to seek justice.

Why the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Matters

The IRPA is the cornerstone of Canada's immigration system. It outlines the country's objectives, which include family reunification, and establishes the legal categories for who can come to Canada. It also gives immigration officers the power to examine applications and make decisions based on admissibility criteria, including security concerns.

In plain language: The IRPA gives IRCC the duty to process applications, including spousal sponsorships. While it allows for necessary checks, this duty is not indefinite. The law implies that decisions must be made in a timely manner.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: The Federal Court looks to the objectives of the IRPA, like family reunification, to assess whether a long delay is frustrating the purpose of the law. An indefinite holdup in a spousal sponsorship case directly conflicts with these stated goals.

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

While IRPA governs immigration, the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) gives the Federal Court its power. It is the legal engine that allows the court to supervise federal bodies like IRCC and ensure they are acting lawfully. This Act provides the authority for the Court to grant powerful remedies, such as an order of mandamus, to correct administrative inaction.

In plain language: This Act is what lets you take the government to court when it fails to make a decision on your application. It empowers a judge to step in and order IRCC to act.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: This is the Act that gives life to a mandamus application. Without it, there would be no formal mechanism to challenge unreasonable delays and force a resolution when your spousal PR is stuck in security screening.

When Security Screening Becomes an Unreasonable Delay

While security is a valid and crucial part of the immigration process, it cannot be a black hole where applications disappear without explanation. The Federal Court has repeatedly examined cases where applicants waited for years, only to be told their file was still “in progress.” The key question the Court asks is not whether security screening is necessary, but whether the delay it causes is reasonable and justified.

In the landmark case of Naeemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 550, an applicant, a former Afghan diplomat, sought a mandamus order after his spousal sponsorship application was delayed for five years. IRCC argued the delay was justified due to complex security screening related to his high-profile background. The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that IRCC had provided a satisfactory justification. The judge noted, “The evidence on 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.”

This case shows that the Court will accept long delays if the justification is specific and compelling. However, this is often not the case. More frequently, IRCC offers vague reasons that the Court finds insufficient. For example, in Saqib Javed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 987, a Federal Skilled Worker application was delayed for 49 months. IRCC’s justification was simply that security checks were ongoing. The Court rejected this, granting mandamus and stating 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 principle was reinforced in Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 181, where a 45-month delay in a PNP application was challenged. The Court found the delay unreasonable and ordered a decision within 90 days, explaining, “While security screening is an important statutory requirement... this Court has consistently rejected bald or conclusory assertions of ongoing screening as a sufficient justification for prolonged delay.”

What about situations where the delay is caused by security checks for a co-applicant? The Court has taken a nuanced approach. In Start-Up Visa cases like AMIRHOSSEIN MAJIDI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 680, a delay due to a co-applicant's family member's security screening was found unreasonable because IRCC's explanation was another insufficient “blanket statement.” However, in a different SUV case, Seyed Mostafa Salehi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1590, a 51-month delay was deemed justified because the regulations explicitly tie all essential applicants together. If one member cannot be approved due to security concerns, none can. This highlights that the program-specific rules in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (SOR/2002-227), current to December 10, 2025; last amended November 25, 2025 are critical.

The Importance of Prejudice: A Contested Element

A crucial point of debate in mandamus cases has been whether an applicant must prove they have suffered “significant prejudice” from the delay. The case of Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 388 illustrates this. The Court found the delay in a spousal sponsorship case was unreasonable and IRCC's justification was weak, but it dismissed the mandamus application because the applicant provided only vague evidence of hardship. The judge stated the applicant's affidavit was “not sufficient to meet the Applicant's burden of demonstrating significant prejudice.”

However, many other Federal Court judges have pushed back against this requirement. In SURINDER MOHAN SHARMA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 796, the Court explicitly rejected the need to prove prejudice, quoting a colleague who said requiring it “would, perversely, require a level of hardship that mandamus is specifically intended to prevent.” This view is shared in cases like Saqib Javed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 987 and Tousi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 671, which confirm that the focus should be on the unreasonableness of the delay itself, not just its impact.

Key Lessons

• Security Screening is Not a Blank Cheque: While IRCC must conduct security checks, it cannot use this as an indefinite excuse for inaction. The Federal Court requires a satisfactory justification for why a screening is taking an unusually long time.
• Blanket Statements Are Insufficient: Simply stating that a file is “undergoing security checks” is not enough to justify a multi-year delay. The Court expects more specific information about the nature of the review.
• The Burden Shifts to IRCC: Once a delay becomes prima facie unreasonable (i.e., significantly longer than published processing times), the responsibility falls on IRCC to explain why. Failure to provide a good reason will likely result in a successful mandamus order.
• Judicial Review is a Powerful Tool: If your spousal PR is stuck in security screening for years without a meaningful update, a mandamus application is often the only effective way to compel a decision and bring your family’s ordeal to an end.
• Not All Delays Are Unreasonable: The Court recognizes that some cases are legitimately complex. If IRCC can show specific, serious security concerns (Naeemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 550) or that a delay is caused by program rules (Seyed Mostafa Salehi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1590), a mandamus application may not succeed.

Navigating the uncertainty of a prolonged application delay is incredibly difficult. Understanding your rights and the legal avenues available is the first step toward regaining control. If your application has stalled without a clear and reasonable explanation, seeking professional legal guidance can help you determine if a Judicial Review is the right path to finally get the decision your family deserves.