When an application to IRCC sits for years with no decision and no explanation, the cause is often comprehensive security screening. Mandamus is the Federal Court remedy for that situation: an order compelling a public body to perform a legal duty it owes you. It does not order an approval. It orders a decision. To obtain one, an applicant must satisfy the eight-part Apotex test and, on the delay component, the three-part Conille test, and must show that the delay is longer than the process reasonably requires, that they did not cause it, and that the authority has not offered a satisfactory justification for it.
Mandamus has moved from a rare remedy to a routine one. On figures presented by the Federal Court in October 2025, mandamus applications rose from roughly 3.6 percent of immigration filings in 2019 to roughly 26 percent in 2024. Verify current figures against the Court’s own published statistics before relying on them.
Key Takeaways
- Mandamus compels a decision, not a favourable decision. The Minister remains free to refuse.
- The test is conjunctive. Failing any one of the eight Apotex criteria defeats the application.
- The Federal Court has repeatedly held that a bare statement that “security screening is ongoing” is not, without more, a satisfactory justification for delay.
- The Federal Court of Appeal in Benison (2026) clarified the burden of proof, rejected significant prejudice as a precondition to establishing unreasonable delay, and cast doubt on the queue-jumping objection.
- Timing matters. A procedural fairness letter issued shortly before the hearing can defeat an otherwise strong application.
Why files disappear into security screening
Security screening in Canada is a trilateral process across IRCC, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). IRCC conducts an initial assessment of all foreign nationals, including database and biometric checks. Where that assessment raises concerns, the file is referred for comprehensive security screening to CBSA’s National Security Screening Division and, where questions of national security arise, to CSIS. All in-Canada refugee claims are subject to comprehensive screening.
CBSA reviews open sources, internal intelligence and enforcement databases, classified holdings, and consultations with foreign partners. CSIS runs a parallel review and may conduct security interviews. CBSA then provides IRCC with a screening recommendation, which must meet the statutory threshold of reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is inadmissible. IRCC makes the final decision.
Two features of this architecture explain most of the frustration applicants feel. First, the triage indicators that determine whether a file gets a light record check or a full comprehensive check are not disclosed, which makes the triage decision itself very difficult to challenge. Second, classified information cannot be released to the applicant or to counsel, so the fairness letter and the refusal letter can only ever gesture at the underlying concern.
What happens to “processing times” once screening starts
Once a file enters comprehensive screening, published processing times stop being a reliable guide. The Federal Court has said that while posted processing times are not binding, they still assist in understanding the baseline against which a delay is measured.
There is a further wrinkle on the temporary resident side. Internal guidance contemplates that where an application has reached or exceeded the processing standard, a manager may notify CBSA of an intent to issue a visa; if screening status is then updated to inconclusive, the officer may finalize the application. In other words, the system already contemplates that screening cannot justify indefinite inaction.
The mandamus test
The framework comes from Apotex v Canada (Attorney General), affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. There must be a public legal duty to act; the duty must be owed to the applicant; there must be a clear right to performance, including satisfaction of all conditions precedent, a prior demand for performance, a reasonable time to comply, and a subsequent express or implied refusal; where the duty is discretionary the nature of that discretion must be considered; no other adequate remedy may be available; the order must have practical value; there must be no equitable bar; and the balance of convenience must favour the order.
Conille v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) supplies the delay analysis: the delay must be prima facie longer than the nature of the process requires, the applicant must not be responsible for it, and the authority must not have provided a satisfactory justification.
What the Federal Court has said recently
A bare security-screening explanation is not enough. Screening is a legitimate and important requirement that can justify lengthy delay, but the Court’s jurisprudence is clear that a blanket statement that a security check is pending, without evidence or explanation, does not discharge the third Conille branch. See Jebelli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 500, and Almasi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1377. Unexplained delay tied to an inadmissibility investigation has similarly been found unsatisfactory in Vadiati v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1056.
Significant prejudice is not a precondition. In Tousi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 671, and Majidi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 680, the Court held that requiring proof of significant prejudice as an additional element of unreasonable delay is not consistent with Conille. Prejudice is better located at the balance of convenience stage. The Federal Court of Appeal took the same view in Benison v Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee), 2026 FCA 53.
The burden is split. Benison confirmed that the first four Apotex criteria go to entitlement and are the applicant’s burden, while the last four go to the Court’s discretion to withhold a remedy the applicant would otherwise be entitled to, with the respondent bearing the burden or the Court raising the issue itself.
Queue jumping is a weak answer. Benison expressed serious doubt about a rule under which mandamus would be barred simply because many others are also waiting, since that logic would shield systemic delay from the reach of the writ altogether.
Delay can be justified. In Doust v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1546, a procedural fairness letter issued about a week before the hearing explained the security concerns and the application was dismissed. In Mostafa Salehi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1590, the applicant’s permanent residence application was tied to co-applicants under a start-up business, and the Court found the order sought would have no practical value. In Nguyen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1583, citizenship applications had been suspended pending a CBSA investigation under the Citizenship Act, and the Court found no public duty to continue processing during the suspension.
Remedies can be shaped. In Mamut v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1593, the Court found inordinate delay of roughly nine to eleven years in permanent residence applications tied to unresolved security concerns and ordered decisions within thirty days. In A.B.C.D. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1296, the Court issued sequential orders with defined timelines at each stage. In Khajir v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 258, the respondent was ordered to advise the applicants of their position in the queue. Note the counterpoint in A.A. v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 365: mandamus will not issue to enforce a future obligation that is not yet due.
Costs
Under Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, costs on an immigration judicial review may be awarded only where the Court finds special reasons. Excessive delay caused by immigration decision makers has supported costs awards, including in Mamut. Special reasons have been described as covering conduct that unnecessarily or unreasonably prolongs proceedings, or that is unfair, oppressive, improper, or made in bad faith.
Security procedural fairness letters
A security PFL will identify the sections of IRPA in issue, describe the concern in general terms, list the open sources consulted, and give a response deadline, commonly thirty days with extensions available on request. Classified material will not appear in it.
Useful responses tend to do several things at once: request particulars where the allegation is unclear; test the sources actually relied on, including whether they are accessible and what they in fact say; identify the generic or template character of the allegation; and, where the allegation is sweeping, meet it with expert evidence. Affidavit evidence, expert reports, and legal submissions are the standard components on paper-based files. Where an interview is scheduled, keep contemporaneous notes and record any procedural irregularity such as interpretation problems or undisclosed material. Expect the possibility of a second, strengthened fairness letter rather than a decision.
If you are already at the Federal Court, our Federal Court judicial review page explains the leave and hearing process, and our immigration litigation page sets out the broader tribunal and court landscape.
If the delay ends in a security finding
Section 34 of IRPA covers espionage, subversion, terrorism, danger to the security of Canada, acts of violence, and membership in an organization engaged in those acts. Section 33 sets the standard of proof at reasonable grounds to believe, which the Supreme Court in Mugesera described as more than suspicion but less than a balance of probabilities, requiring an objective basis grounded in compelling and credible information.
The consequences are severe: a person inadmissible under s. 34 is generally barred from making a refugee claim to the Immigration and Refugee Board, cannot obtain refugee protection through a pre-removal risk assessment, and is barred from applying on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. For permanent residence, ministerial relief is the principal avenue. On the temporary side, a national interest temporary resident permit or a public policy temporary resident visa may be available in defined circumstances.
The membership provision in s. 34(1)(f) is interpreted broadly, and the courts have continued to apply that approach while acknowledging the criticism of it. The definitions of espionage, subversion, and terrorism remain actively litigated, with certified questions pending in several recent cases. There is room to argue, but the thresholds are low and the provisions are wide, and clients deserve to hear that plainly at the outset.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does mandamus force IRCC to approve my application?
No. It compels a decision within a set time. The decision can still be a refusal.
How long must I wait before filing?
There is no fixed number. The delay must be prima facie longer than the process reasonably requires, assessed against the posted processing time and the circumstances of the file, and there must have been a prior demand for performance and a failure to respond.
Will filing mandamus make things worse?
Filing does not create a legal penalty. It does have practical consequences, including cost, timeline, and the possibility that a fairness letter is issued in response. Timing and case selection matter.
Can I find out what the concern is?
Sometimes, in part. Access to information requests are a standard step and redactions are applied inconsistently, which is why practitioners file more than one. Classified material will not be released, and the Minister may seek a non-disclosure order over sensitive portions of the record.
Is nationality a factor in who gets comprehensive screening?
Review bodies have examined screening practices in the past, and practitioners observe that comprehensive screening falls disproportionately on applicants connected to certain countries. There has been no successful constitutional challenge to that structure to date.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Immigration law and IRCC/ESDC policy change frequently, and every case turns on its own facts. Reading this article does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Obtain advice tailored to your situation before you act.
Talk to a Canadian immigration lawyer. BridgePoint Law advises individuals and businesses across Canada — and on Canada–US–China cross-border matters — on security screening delays, mandamus applications, and security inadmissibility. Book a consultation with our team in Toronto and Kingston. We work in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.