Mandamus in Canadian Immigration: When Does an IRCC Delay Become Unreasonable?

Long processing times are a reality in Canadian immigration matters. However, there is an important distinction between a long delay and an unreasonable delay. In Hazea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1058, the Federal Court granted a writ of mandamus after finding that IRCC had failed to provide an adequate justification for a permanent residence application that had remained in processing for more than 44 months. The Court ordered that a decision be made within 60 days. The decision is particularly useful because the Court compared the Applicant’s circumstances with several earlier cases where much longer delays were found not to justify mandamus because there were specific criminality, security, war-crimes, or other concerns explaining the delay.

What Is Mandamus?

A writ of mandamus is a public-law remedy through which the Federal Court can compel a government authority, including Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), to perform a legal duty that it has failed to perform.

In an immigration case, mandamus generally does not mean that the Court orders IRCC to approve an application. Instead, the Court may order IRCC to make a decision within a specified period.

The leading test comes from Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General). The Court summarized the requirements for mandamus as follows:

1. There must be a public legal duty to act.
2. The duty must be owed to the applicant.
3. The applicant must have a clear right to performance of the duty, including having satisfied the necessary conditions and having made a prior demand for performance.
4. Where the duty involves discretion, the nature of that discretion must be considered.
5. There must be no other adequate remedy.
6. The requested order must have practical value.
7. There must be no equitable bar to relief.
8. The balance of convenience must favour granting mandamus.

In immigration-delay cases, one of the most important questions is usually whether the government’s failure to make a decision amounts to an implied refusal to act because of unreasonable delay.

When Does an Immigration Delay Become “Unreasonable”?

There is no fixed number of months or years after which an applicant automatically becomes entitled to mandamus.

Relying on Conille v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the Court identified three important considerations:

• the delay is longer than the nature of the process normally requires;
• the applicant and their counsel are not responsible for the delay; and
• the government has not provided a satisfactory justification for the delay.

This means that simply showing that an application has taken a long time is not necessarily enough. The reason for the delay matters.

In Hazea’s case, Mr. Hazea, a citizen of Yemen, was granted refugee protection in Canada on September 27, 2022. He applied for permanent residence on October 18, 2022. In 2024, he travelled to Saudi Arabia to marry and subsequently asked IRCC to add his wife, also a Yemeni citizen, as a dependant on his permanent residence application. Beginning in August 2024, he repeatedly contacted IRCC about his application and made several requests for urgent processing. According to the decision, he explained that the continuing uncertainty was affecting his employment prospects, his mental health, and his separation from his wife. IRCC eventually characterized the application as “non-routine,” but did not adequately explain what made it non-routine. By March 2025, he had passed biometrics and criminality screening. Security screening appears to have been submitted to IRCC’s screening partners on April 1, 2025 and remained “in progress.” Importantly, the Court observed that it was unclear why it had taken approximately two and a half years even to commence security screening. By the time of the proceeding, the permanent residence application had been outstanding for more than 44 months, over three and a half years.

Security Screening Does Not Automatically Justify Every Delay

One of the most important aspects of Hazea is the Court’s discussion of security screening. IRCC argued that the delay was justified because Mr. Hazea’s security screening remained in progress and IRCC has statutory responsibilities relating to Canadian and international security. The Court did not reject the importance of security screening. Instead, it distinguished cases where lengthy processing periods had been justified by specific evidence explaining why additional investigation was necessary.

However, In Carrero v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 891, approximately six years of investigations and background checks did not constitute an unreasonable delay because IRCC had legitimate concerns regarding the applicant’s criminality and possible involvement in war crimes. This is an important comparison. A six-year delay may sound extraordinary, but the length of delay alone did not determine the case. There was a specific reason for the extended investigation.

The Court also referred to Jaber v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1185. In that case, there were documented security concerns concerning the applicant’s spouse, and the applicant was also subject to proceedings concerning the cessation of her refugee status. Again, there was evidence explaining why the application required additional time.

The Court also discussed Seyoboka v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1290, involving an application that had been processed for approximately nine years. During that period, the applicant made several additions to the permanent residence application. According to the Court’s summary in Hazea, each addition further implicated the applicant in possible criminality or crimes against humanity connected with the Rwandan genocide.

These cases demonstrate an important principle: A very long delay is not automatically unreasonable, and a shorter delay is not automatically reasonable. The Court examines why the delay occurred and whether IRCC can provide a satisfactory explanation.

The Federal Court Found the Delay Unreasonable

The Court ultimately relied on three significant circumstances:

First, IRCC had not provided a satisfactory justification for the delay.

Second, the application had remained in processing for more than a year beyond the longest estimated processing time presented to the Court.

Third, there was little evidence that Mr. Hazea himself had meaningfully contributed to the delay.

The Court therefore concluded that the delay was unreasonable and warranted mandamus.

A Heightened Responsibility Toward Refugees

The Court went further and discussed Canada’s obligations toward Convention refugees.

It referred to Article 34 of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which requires contracting states, as far as possible, to facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees and to make efforts to expedite naturalization proceedings.

The Court also referred to Canada’s obligations under subsection 3(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including Canada’s international legal obligations toward refugees, the importance of fair and efficient procedures, and facilitating family reunification.

The Result: IRCC Ordered to Decide Within 60 Days

The Federal Court granted the application for mandamus. Most importantly, the Court ordered that IRCC must render a decision on Mr. Hazea’s permanent residence application as soon as possible and no later than 60 days from the date of the Court’s order. The order was without prejudice to the Minister’s ability to request an extension.

What Does Hazea Mean for Applicants Experiencing IRCC Delays?

Hazea does not establish a rule that every application exceeding the published processing time qualifies for mandamus.

Instead, it reinforces that mandamus cases are highly fact-specific.

The comparison with Carrero, Jaber, and Seyoboka is particularly important. Courts may accept delays of six years, nine years, or other lengthy periods where there are genuine and documented security, criminality, war-crimes, cessation, or other complexities requiring further investigation.

On the other hand, IRCC cannot necessarily justify years of inactivity merely by stating that “security screening is in progress” or describing an application as “non-routine.” The government may need to provide a satisfactory explanation showing why the particular application requires the additional time.

For applicants considering mandamus, relevant considerations may include:

• how long the application has been pending;
• IRCC’s published processing times for the relevant category;
• what stages of processing have already been completed;
• whether security, criminality, eligibility, or background screening remains outstanding;
• whether IRCC has identified a specific reason for the delay;
• whether the applicant contributed to the delay;
• whether the applicant repeatedly requested updates or a decision;
• whether IRCC has provided meaningful responses to those requests; and
• whether there is another adequate remedy available.

A mandamus application is therefore not simply an argument that “my application has taken too long.” The stronger legal question is whether, considering the nature of the application and the explanation provided by IRCC, the delay has become legally unreasonable.

Experiencing an Unreasonable IRCC Delay?

If your Canadian immigration or permanent residence application has remained in processing significantly beyond normal processing times, legal advice can help determine whether a Federal Court application for mandamus may be appropriate in your circumstances. Contact us at YA Law Corporation. We are located in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice. Whether mandamus is available depends on the particular circumstances of each application.