Citizenship Stuck for Years on Security Screening? Mandamus Explained

The journey to Canadian citizenship is one of the most significant paths an immigrant can take. It begins with hope and anticipation, culminating in an application that represents years of building a life in Canada. But what happens when that application, meant to be the final step, disappears into a silent, multi-year administrative limbo? For many, the answer is a frustratingly vague status update: “security screening in progress.” When years pass with no decision and no clear explanation, the legal system offers a powerful tool to demand action: an application for an order of mandamus through Judicial Review at the Federal Court.

This is not about skipping the queue or demanding an approval. It is about enforcing the right to a timely decision. The law recognizes that justice delayed is justice denied, and an indefinite wait on a citizenship application can stall a person’s ability to fully participate in Canadian life, travel freely, and secure their future. Understanding the legal framework and seeing how others have successfully challenged these delays in court can provide a clear path forward.

The Legal Foundation for Citizenship and Court Oversight

The process of applying for citizenship and challenging delays is governed by a clear hierarchy of laws. The Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29) sets out the destination, while the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) provides the map for when the journey goes off course.

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

The Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29) is the cornerstone of Canadian citizenship. It defines who is a citizen and establishes the legal pathways for newcomers to obtain this status. The Act grants the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship the authority to make decisions on these applications, and it is supplemented by the Citizenship Regulations (SOR/93-246), which detail the procedural and documentary requirements applicants must meet.

In plain language: These laws create the legal duty for IRCC to process and decide on a properly submitted citizenship application. While they don't specify an exact processing time, the duty to make a decision is implicit.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: When IRCC fails to make a decision within a reasonable timeframe, an applicant can argue that the department is failing to perform its public legal duty under the Citizenship Act (RSC 1985, c C-29). This failure opens the door for the Federal Court to intervene.

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

The Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) is the statute that empowers the Federal Court to supervise the actions, and inactions, of federal bodies like IRCC. It provides the court with the authority to issue remedies, including an order of mandamus, which compels a government official to perform a legal duty they have failed to carry out. The procedural steps for bringing such an application are laid out in the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106).

In plain language: This Act gives you the right to take IRCC to court when they take an unreasonable amount of time to process your application. It’s the legal mechanism to hold the government accountable for inaction.

Why this matters in Judicial Review: Mandamus applications are brought directly under the authority of the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7). The Court uses this power to assess whether a delay is unreasonable and, if so, to order IRCC to make a decision, finally breaking the administrative gridlock.

When a Silent Application Becomes an Unreasonable Delay

The path from a filed application to a court order is paved with evidence of unjustified delay. The Federal Court has repeatedly examined cases where citizenship applications languished for years, often stuck in opaque security screenings. These decisions reveal a clear pattern: IRCC must provide a cogent explanation for excessive delays, or the Court will intervene.

The Court's Stance on Vague Justifications

In Jebelli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 500, an applicant who had lived in Canada since 2011 was still waiting for a decision on his 2020 citizenship application after 1592 days. IRCC’s justification was that security checks were ongoing, but it offered no substantive reason for the hold-up. The Federal Court found this unacceptable. The Court ruled the delay was unreasonable and ordered IRCC to make a decision within 90 days.

While the Court appreciated the update, there is no assurance in any event that a decision on the application is imminent. There is no evidence to support any justification for the delay. As such, I find that the delay is unreasonable. (at para 23)

This sentiment was echoed in Almasi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC1377. Mr. Almasi, an Iranian national, filed his citizenship application in May 2021 and faced a similar wall of silence. The reason for the delay was an outstanding security clearance. Citing the Jebelli decision, the Court again found that a blanket statement like “security remains under review” is not a sufficient justification for a multi-year delay.

Here, like in Jebelli, the Global Case Management System notes for Mr. Almasi state that “security remains under review” without any other information to provide any basis or explanation for the security concerns, or the expected investigation length. This is akin to a blanket statement that security checks are pending in the numerous cases cited in the extract above. (at para 19)

Expert insight: These cases show that the courts expect more from IRCC than generic excuses. If your application is stuck on security screening for years, the burden shifts to the government to explain why that delay is reasonable. Without a good reason, the Court is likely to grant a mandamus order.

When a Suspension Becomes Unreasonable

Sometimes, an application isn't just delayed; it's officially suspended. However, even a formal suspension must be reasonable and necessary. In Alasmar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1260, a family’s citizenship applications were suspended for over six years due to an admissibility investigation. The investigation was eventually found to have no grounds, yet the file remained open as an “intelligence investigation” with no apparent activity.

The Court found that IRCC could not simply rely on the CBSA's claim that an investigation was “ongoing.” It had an independent duty to assess whether the suspension remained necessary. Finding no evidence of a diligent investigation, the Court set aside the suspension and ordered a decision within 90 days.

To the contrary, the evidence shows that the investigation has been languishing. In the circumstances, I find that the suspension has continued longer than necessary and is outside reasonable bounds. (at para 62)

The Applicant's Duty to Cooperate

While the focus is often on IRCC's delay, the applicant has responsibilities too. The remedy of mandamus is only available to those who have done everything required of them. In Jasmeen Kaur Manes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 80, an applicant sought a mandamus order after waiting nearly eight years for a decision. However, the Court discovered that the delay was caused by her own failure to provide documents requested by IRCC for several years. Because she had not fulfilled her obligations, the Court ruled she had no clear right to a decision and dismissed her case.

Expert insight: This is a critical lesson. Before you can argue that IRCC’s delay is unreasonable, you must ensure you have not contributed to it. Promptly responding to all requests for information is essential to a successful mandamus application.

Key Lessons for Applicants Facing Delays

• Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of your application submission, all correspondence with IRCC, and any inquiries you or your representative have made. This timeline is crucial evidence in a mandamus application.
• Vague Excuses Are Not Enough: The Federal Court has consistently ruled that generic statements like “security screening in progress” are not sufficient to justify years of delay. IRCC must provide a cogent reason.
• Your Own Actions Matter: You must have fulfilled all your obligations as an applicant, including submitting all required forms and documents. As seen in the Manes case, a court will not order IRCC to act if you are the cause of the delay.
• Suspensions Must Be Actively Justified: Even if your file is officially suspended pending an investigation, that suspension cannot be indefinite. IRCC must be able to show that the investigation is active and necessary, not simply “languishing.”
• Mandamus Is a Powerful Tool: For those caught in an unreasonable administrative delay, an application for Judicial Review seeking an order of mandamus is the most effective legal remedy to compel a decision and bring your citizenship journey to a conclusion.

Waiting years for a citizenship decision can be an isolating and stressful experience. But you are not without recourse. The Canadian legal system, through the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7), provides a mechanism to hold decision-makers accountable and ensure your right to a timely decision is respected. If your application feels lost in the system, seeking legal guidance on a mandamus application may be the key to moving forward.