Immigration and Refugees Law
Reading Time
10 MINUTE READ
No — an IRCC backlog is not automatically a legal excuse for a long delay. The Federal Court asks whether the delay is longer than the process reasonably requires, whether you caused it, and whether IRCC has given a satisfactory, case-specific explanation. A general reference to “backlog” or “security checks pending” often is not enough, but a well-documented explanation can be.
If your application has been sitting with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) far longer than expected, this guide explains how Canadian courts decide when a delay becomes unreasonable, how posted processing times are used, how security screening is treated, and what you can do — including asking the Federal Court for an order of mandamus.
Key takeaways
Table of contents
The leading test for unreasonable administrative delay comes from Conille v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 FC 33 (para. 23). A delay is considered unreasonable when three conditions are met:
In 2026 the Federal Court of Appeal clarified how this works in practice. Once an applicant shows that the delay — leaving out any delay they or their counsel caused — goes beyond what the process inherently requires, the burden shifts to the decision-maker to show a satisfactory justification (Benison v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53, para. 98). The Court also observed that insufficient agency resources cannot excuse inordinate delay (para. 66).
For a step-by-step look at the remedy itself, see our guide on how to get a mandamus order in the Federal Court of Canada.
No. IRCC’s posted service standards and processing-time estimates are not legally binding promises. But the Federal Court treats them as useful evidence. In Andriendo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1054, the Court said that while IRCC is not bound by its published service standards, they are a relevant metric for deciding whether a delay has become unreasonable (para. 23).
Recent decisions show both sides of this rule:
In short, being past the posted estimate helps prove the first part of the Conille test, but it does not win the case on its own.
Sometimes — but only with evidence. The Federal Court does not treat a backlog as automatically sufficient or automatically insufficient. What matters is whether IRCC explains, with a proper record, why this application is taking this long.
For example, in Zhou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 927, the Court accepted that a major reduction in Québec Business Class admission spaces, matched by rising average processing times, justified the delay on that record — while stressing that such a reduction is not an automatic justification and that evidence is required (paras. 25, 33–38). In Javid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1440, a detailed account of the program’s inventory, processing priorities and federal–provincial arrangements was also accepted (paras. 28–35).
By contrast, a generalized statement that IRCC is busy, or old system notes saying the file is “in progress”, usually will not carry the burden once the applicant has shown a delay well beyond what the process requires.
Security and admissibility screening by the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is an important part of immigration processing, and the Court is deferential about its length. But “security screening” is not a self-proving answer.
In Jahantigh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1253 — a case argued by Dr. Samin Mortazavi of Pax Law Corporation — the Court said that simply referring to a security review cannot justify any delay regardless of its length, and that the Minister does not have “carte blanche” (para. 19). In Roghangar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 987, a general submission that Iranian military service triggers more extensive screening did not justify the delay; the Court said it is not enough to list factors that can generally cause delays and invite it to speculate (para. 29).
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome; every case depends on its own facts.
Relief can also be tailored. In Khajir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 258, involving an applicant who had served in an IRGC unit, the Court ordered a decision on admissibility rather than a final decision on the whole application (paras. 21–26). In Kavarizadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1133, the Court ordered a decision within a set period after the requested military-service information was provided (paras. 57–68). On the other hand, where IRCC produces detailed, file-specific screening evidence — as in Naeemi — the Court may find the delay justified.
If your file involves military service in Iran, see our article on IRGC military service security screening and mandamus.
Prior demand. Under the eight-part test from Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA), restated in Benison (para. 16), the applicant must show a clear right to performance, including a prior demand for a decision, a reasonable time to comply, and a refusal — which can be implied by unreasonable delay. No fixed waiting period after the demand is prescribed; it depends on the process and the file.
Delay you cause. Delay caused by the applicant or their counsel does not count. In Emadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1316, the spouse’s absence for a required interview meant the applicant could not show she was not responsible (para. 7). And where a condition precedent — such as required biometrics — is not met, the Court may find that the reasonable-delay clock has not even started (A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1514, para. 70).
Prejudice. Some older cases treated significant prejudice as necessary. The Federal Court of Appeal held in Benison that this was an error: prejudice is not a prerequisite for showing unreasonable delay, although it may still matter to the Court’s overall discretion (paras. 120, 125).
Mandamus is a court order requiring a public official to perform a legal duty — here, to decide your application. It does not order IRCC to approve the application; it orders a decision, or a specific processing step, often within a set period.
Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, judicial review — including review of a failure to act — starts with an application for leave to the Federal Court. The Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules then set strict filing steps, including perfecting the application with a record. Because these deadlines are short, it is wise to get advice early rather than wait.
We found no authority holding that filing a mandamus application may lawfully be held against you or changes the legal criteria for your underlying application. The remedy is about timing, not the merits.
It is common for IRCC to make a decision after a mandamus application is filed. If the decision you asked for is made, the request to compel it generally becomes moot (Abou Hussini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1122, para. 44).
Costs in immigration proceedings are exceptional: under rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, no costs are awarded unless the Court finds “special reasons”. The Court has awarded costs where unexplained delay was serious, even after the case became moot — for example in Abou Hussini and Gichura v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1756 — but denied them where a decision issued shortly before the hearing without proof of unjustified delay (Sellathurai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1548). Read more in our article on recovering legal costs in immigration judicial review and mandamus.
Learn more about our immigration and refugee services, including Federal Court mandamus and judicial review.
Has your application been stuck with IRCC for far longer than expected? Dr. Samin Mortazavi, immigration and refugee lawyer at Pax Law Corporation, assists clients across Canada with delay assessments, demand letters and Federal Court mandamus applications. Immigration consultations are held online or by phone through our Vancouver office, so you can book from anywhere in Canada.
Not automatically. The Federal Court accepts a backlog as a justification only when IRCC provides evidence explaining the delay in your particular file, such as a documented program queue or admission limits.
Under the Conille test, a delay is unreasonable when it is longer than the process requires, you and your counsel did not cause it, and IRCC has not given a satisfactory justification.
No. They are not binding, but the Federal Court treats them as a relevant benchmark when deciding whether a delay has become unreasonable.
It can, but only with evidence about your file. A bare statement that security checks are pending is generally not enough, while detailed, applicant-specific screening evidence may justify the delay.
Mandamus is a Federal Court order requiring IRCC to perform its legal duty to decide your application, often within a set period. It does not require IRCC to approve the application.
Yes. One of the requirements is a prior demand for a decision, a reasonable time to comply, and a refusal, which can be implied by unreasonable delay.
No. The Federal Court of Appeal held in 2026 that significant prejudice is not a requirement for showing unreasonable delay, although it may still be relevant to the Court’s discretion.
Yes. Delay caused by you or your counsel, or a missing requirement such as biometrics or an interview, can mean the delay is not attributable to IRCC.
We are not aware of any authority allowing IRCC to hold a mandamus application against you. The application is about timing, not the merits of your file.
The mandamus request usually becomes moot, but the Court can still decide whether costs should be awarded in special circumstances.
Costs in immigration cases are exceptional and require special reasons. The Court has awarded them where IRCC’s delay was serious and unexplained, but not in every case.
No. The Court can order IRCC to make a decision or complete a specific step, but it cannot decide the application for IRCC.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The law can change and every case is different. Reading it does not create a lawyer–client relationship. For advice about your own situation, please book a consultation with a lawyer.
Using your national passport can lead to refugee cessation under IRPA s 108 and loss of PR status. Learn the Galindo Camayo factors. Pax Law Corporation.
A single IRCC verification call can trigger a misrepresentation finding under IRPA s 40. Learn your rights and the innocent mistake exception.
Learn the Ezokola test for complicity and how IRPA s 35(1)(b) applies to prescribed senior officials, plus ministerial relief. Pax Law Corporation.
0 Comments