Immigration and Refugee Law
Reading Time
9 MINUTE READ
Most immigration applications pass through background and security checks without the applicant ever noticing. Sometimes, though, a file stops moving and the only explanation from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is that security screening is still in progress. If that has happened to you, you may be asking whether the Federal Court can step in.
This article explains in plain language what security screening is, why some files take longer than others, what a mandamus application is, the legal test the Federal Court applies, and how the Court has treated security screening delays in recent decisions. The general principles apply to applicants in many IRCC programs, such as permanent residence, work and study permits, visitor visas and sponsorship. It is general legal information, not legal advice.
In this article
Before IRCC approves many kinds of applications, it must be satisfied that the applicant is not inadmissible to Canada. Part of that work is security screening: checking whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person falls within one of the security grounds in section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). These grounds include espionage, subversion, terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada, acts of violence that might endanger people in Canada, and membership in an organization described in that section. Under section 33 of IRPA, these facts are assessed on the standard of “reasonable grounds to believe”.
IRCC does not do this work alone. Under section 14 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) may advise the Minister and provide information about security matters or criminal activities that is relevant to the Minister’s duties under IRPA and the Citizenship Act. The Federal Court has also described the National Security Screening Division of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), whose assessment IRCC considers when it decides admissibility (Almuhtadi, 2021 FC 712, para 16). As CSIS explains, IRCC remains responsible for the file and the decision, and CSIS does not answer questions about individual immigration or citizenship screening.
Most files are screened routinely. Others take longer because the partner agencies or IRCC need more information or further review. Situations that often appear in Federal Court cases include:
IRCC’s online status page usually does not say that screening is the issue. People often learn about it from their Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes, from a request for more information, or from the government’s evidence once a court case starts. IRCC publishes processing times, but they are not deadlines, and the Federal Court has said there is no fixed time after which a delay becomes unreasonable (Yang, 2025 FC 1687, para 10). For how the Court weighs delay generally, see our article Is the IRCC backlog a legal excuse?. For screening linked to compulsory military service, see IRGC military service and security screening and security screening and IRPA section 34 referrals.
Mandamus is a court order that requires a public official to perform a legal duty. In immigration matters, it is usually used to require IRCC to decide an application that has been delayed for an unreasonable time. The Federal Court’s power comes from section 18.1(3)(a) of the Federal Courts Act, which allows the Court to order a federal decision-maker to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing.
For applications under IRPA, the case is a judicial review that begins with an application for leave (permission) under section 72 of IRPA. You can read more on our immigration judicial reviews page and our stuck immigration file (mandamus) service page.
The leading test comes from the Federal Court of Appeal in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 FC 742 (FCA). As summarized by the Federal Court in Fresenius Kabi Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Health), 2020 FC 1013, para 36, the applicant must show that:
To decide whether a delay is unreasonable, the Court applies three requirements from Conille v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 FC 33 (TD), para 23:
Security screening is usually argued under the third requirement: on the evidence in this file, is screening a satisfactory justification?
The Court looks at the evidence, not just the label. A general statement that security checks are pending is often not enough, but a record showing specific concerns and active steps can be.
Decisions granting mandamus
Decisions refusing mandamus
The lesson is that the result depends on what the government can show about the specific file. Every case is different.
Mandamus may be worth considering when:
It may be a weaker option if you caused part of the delay, for example through missing documents or late biometrics, if IRCC has recently asked you for information, or if the record shows specific and ongoing security steps. The Court considers delay caused by the applicant in context (Jaballah, 2019 FC 1051, paras 103–104; Gichura, 2024 FC 1756, paras 14–15).
If mandamus is granted, the Court usually orders IRCC to make a decision within a set period. It does not order IRCC to approve the application. In A.B.C.D. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1296, para 76, the Court confirmed that mandamus cannot compel a discretion to be exercised in a particular way or dictate the result. In Mamut, the applicants were entitled to decisions without further undue delay, not to a favourable result (para 122). A mandamus order is about timing, not about the merits of any security concern.
If IRCC decides the application before the hearing, the mandamus application usually becomes moot, and a refusal would have to be challenged in a new judicial review (Zhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1450, paras 16 and 18).
These steps do not force a decision, but they carry little risk and can help build the record:
Get advice before you send a demand letter, and before filing in the Federal Court, especially if your file involves past military or government service, a procedural fairness letter, or a request from IRCC about security matters. A lawyer can review your GCMS notes, assess the Apotex and Conille requirements, and check the timing rules in section 72 of IRPA. Lawyers at Pax Law Corporation have acted in Federal Court mandamus applications, including files held in security screening, and Federal Court decisions involving Pax Law Corporation lawyers are published on CanLII. See our court decisions page. Every case is different and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
It is the process IRCC uses, with partner agencies such as CSIS and the CBSA, to check whether there are reasonable grounds to believe you are inadmissible on security grounds under IRPA section 34(1).
No. The Federal Court has held that a blanket statement that security checks are pending is not, on its own, an adequate explanation (Almuhtadi, 2021 FC 712; Ran, 2023 FC 1447). The government must justify the delay with evidence about your file.
There is no fixed time. The Federal Court has said that whether a delay is unreasonable depends on the facts of each case (Yang, 2025 FC 1687, para 10).
The Apotex test requires a prior demand, a reasonable time to comply and a refusal, which may be implied from delay. The court application itself was not treated as a prior demand in Skibsted, 2021 FC 416, so a clear written demand is the safer course.
No. Mandamus orders IRCC to make a decision, usually within a set period. It cannot dictate the result (A.B.C.D., 2025 FC 1296, para 76).
Yes. IRCC must decide, but the decision can be negative. IRCC may also send a procedural fairness letter before deciding.
Leave is the Federal Court’s permission for an IRPA judicial review to go forward. A judge decides it on the written record, and there is no appeal from that decision (IRPA section 72).
Where the evidence showed specific security concerns and active steps, such as in Naeemi, 2026 FC 550, Doust, 2025 FC 1546 and Cheloei, 2025 FC 820.
The mandamus application usually becomes moot. If the decision is a refusal, it must be challenged in a new judicial review (Zhu, 2025 FC 1450).
Usually not. Under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, costs are not awarded unless the Court finds special reasons.
Canadian citizens and permanent residents can request records under the Access to Information Act and their own personal information under the Privacy Act. IRCC’s access to information and privacy page explains who may request and how.
No. CSIS states that it does not answer questions about individual immigration or citizenship screening and that these questions should be directed to IRCC.
Yes. You can send a status request through the IRCC web form, ask your Member of Parliament’s office to make an inquiry, keep IRCC updated, and request your GCMS notes.
If your IRCC file has been held in security screening, a lawyer at Pax Law Corporation can review your situation with you.
For more on Canadian law: subscribe on YouTube · Instagram @paxlawcorp · TikTok @paxlaw
Disclaimer: This article is general legal information only, not legal advice. It reflects the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Federal Courts Act, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the court decisions cited as of the date of publication. Laws change and every case is different, so speak with a lawyer about your own circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
A plain-language guide to what happens to a bridging open work permit when the permanent residence application behind it is refused or withdrawn, including validity, cancellation, status and options.
A plain-language guide to Express Entry refusals under IRPA s. 11.2: what the law requires, how the Federal Court reviews these refusals, the 15- and 60-day deadlines, remedies and alternatives.
A plain-language guide to procedural fairness letters about prescribed senior official status under IRPA s. 35(1)(b) and IRPR s. 16, including the designation of the Iranian regime, family members, and how to prepare a response.
Book a consultation with Pax Law Corporation and we will explain the options for your matter.
Book a consultationCall 604-767-9529This website provides general legal information only, not legal advice. Booking a consultation does not create a lawyer-client relationship until we confirm in writing. Outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
We use cookies to measure visits and improve this website. Choose whether to allow them.
0 Comments