IRCC Says Your Security Check Is "Still Pending"? That Is Not a Legal Reason

You’ve done everything right. You submitted your application, paid the fees, and provided all the requested documents. You wait, checking the IRCC portal, hoping for an update. Months turn into years, and the only explanation you receive is a vague, frustrating message: “security screening is still pending.” This line, used by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) as a reason for indefinite delays, leaves countless applicants in a state of limbo, unable to plan their lives. But is it a legally sufficient reason? Increasingly, Canada’s Federal Court is saying no.

The journey through Canada’s immigration system is supposed to be governed by clear rules and reasonable timelines. When the process breaks down and delays become unreasonable, applicants have the right to seek answers and action. The process of Judicial Review exists for this very reason, to hold decision-makers accountable and ensure the law is applied fairly. This is the story of how the courts are pushing back against the "security check is still pending" excuse, reminding the government that it has a duty to provide real justifications, not just blanket statements.

The Legal Framework for Immigration Decisions

Every immigration decision, and every delay, is measured against the laws enacted by Parliament. These Acts create the legal duties and powers that govern IRCC’s actions and form the basis for any challenge in Federal Court.

Why the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) Matters

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), or IRPA, is the cornerstone of Canada’s immigration system. It outlines the objectives of Canadian immigration, including family reunification and the timely processing of applications. It grants officers the authority to examine applications and make decisions on everything from temporary visas to permanent residence.

In plain language: IRPA sets the rules of the game. It gives IRCC the authority to process your application but also implies a duty to do so in a reasonable timeframe. It’s the law that says your application must be processed, but it’s often silent on exactly how long that should take.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: When a delay becomes excessive, applicants can argue that IRCC is failing to fulfill its duties under the IRPA. The Federal Court looks to this Act to determine if the government’s inaction is frustrating the law's objectives.

Why the Federal Courts Act Matters

This Act is the reason applicants have a path to justice. It gives the Federal Court the jurisdiction, the power, to review the actions (or inactions) of federal bodies like IRCC. It is the legal tool that allows the Court to issue powerful orders, such as a writ of mandamus, to compel a government body to perform its public duty.

In plain language: The Federal Courts Act creates the referee. When you believe IRCC has unreasonably delayed your file, this Act gives the Federal Court the authority to step in and order IRCC to make a decision.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: This is the very foundation of an application for mandamus. An applicant isn’t just complaining about a delay; they are formally asking the Federal Court, under the authority of the Federal Courts Act , to force a decision.

When "Pending" Becomes Unreasonable: Voices from the Federal Court

The real test of IRCC's justification for delay happens in the courtroom. Applicants from all walks of life, skilled workers, entrepreneurs, and families seeking to reunite, have turned to Judicial Review when faced with years of silence, armed only with the excuse that a security check is "still pending."

The Problem with Blanket Statements

In case after case, the Federal Court has criticized IRCC for its lack of transparency. In Saqib Javed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 987, a Federal Skilled Worker applicant had been waiting for 49 months, eight times the standard processing time. IRCC’s excuse was ongoing security checks.

The Court was not persuaded, stating: “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.”

This sentiment was echoed in Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 181, involving a Provincial Nominee Program applicant waiting 45 months. The Court granted mandamus, making it clear that IRCC must do more than just mention security screening. “While security screening is an important statutory requirement and may account for some processing delay, this Court has consistently rejected bald or conclusory assertions of ongoing screening as a sufficient justification for prolonged delay.”

Expert insight: These cases show that the burden is on IRCC to justify the delay. It’s not enough for them to say “security”; they must explain why a particular security review is taking so long. Their failure to do so is often the key to a successful mandamus application.

Delays Tied to Others: Still Not a Good Enough Reason

The excuse wears even thinner when the delay is caused by someone else's security check. In AMIRHOSSEIN MAJIDI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 680, a Start-Up Visa applicant’s file was stalled because of a security screening for a family member of a co-applicant. The Court found this unacceptable.

The judge noted that IRCC’s explanation was just another “‘blanket statement’... there is simply no information in the above passage about the review itself, and the reasons for its length. This deprives the Court of its ability to assess whether the length of the security review is reasonable.” A decision was ordered within 90 days. Similarly, in Tousi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 671, a 62-month delay for a start-up visa family was blamed on a business partner's review. The Court ruled it was IRCC's responsibility to explain that related delay, which they failed to do, and ordered a decision.

When Delays Are Justified vs. When They Are Not

It is crucial to understand that not all delays are unreasonable. The Court acknowledges that legitimate and complex security concerns take time. In Naeemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 550, a five-year delay for a former Afghan diplomat was found to be justified. Why? Because the government provided evidence of “serious and specific security concerns” and demonstrated ongoing investigative work. The justification was detailed, not a blanket statement.

This contrasts sharply with Alasmar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1260, where citizenship applications were suspended for over six years. The Court found the investigation had been “languishing” and the delay was unreasonable, ordering a decision within 90 days. The difference lies in the quality of the justification IRCC provides to the court.

Conversely, if the applicant is the cause of the delay, the court will not intervene. In cases like Mahboobehsadat Emadi v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1316 (spouse unavailable for a required interview) and Pakatchian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 759 (applicant failed to respond to a Procedural Fairness Letter), the Court sided with IRCC, finding the applicant had not fulfilled the necessary conditions for a decision to be made.

Key Lessons

• "Still Pending" is an Excuse, Not a Justification: The Federal Court has repeatedly ruled that a simple, vague statement about an ongoing security check is not a legally satisfactory reason for an unreasonable delay.
• The Burden of Proof is on IRCC: In a mandamus application, once a delay is shown to be unreasonable on its face, the responsibility shifts to IRCC to provide a detailed and credible explanation for the entire period of delay.
• Your Own Conduct Matters: To have a clear right to a decision, you must have fulfilled all your obligations, including responding to all requests and attending required interviews. Any delay you cause will undermine your case.
• Complexity Requires Evidence: If IRCC claims a case is complex, they must show the court evidence of that complexity and demonstrate that they are actively working on the file, not letting it languish.
• Judicial Review is a Powerful Tool: A writ of mandamus is an effective legal remedy to break through administrative inaction and compel IRCC to do its job and render a decision on your application.

If you find yourself stuck in the endless loop of a “pending” security check, remember that you have rights. The law requires more from the government than vague excuses. Understanding the power of Judicial Review and seeking expert legal guidance can be the key to turning years of waiting into a final decision.