Assessing the Chances of Mandamus Success in Immigration Delay Cases

Mandamus is a legal remedy that can force immigration authorities to make a decision when an application has been stuck in limbo for too long. However, the Federal Court does not grant mandamus easily - it’s considered an extraordinary remedy.

If you’re waiting on a Canadian immigration decision and considering a mandamus application, it’s important to understand the key factors that affect your chances of success. This blog post will break down those factors in plain language, with examples from recent court cases, to help you assess whether your situation might justify a mandamus order.

What Is a Mandamus Application for Immigration Delays?

A writ of mandamus (Latin for “we command”) is an order from the court to a government official to perform their duty - in this context, to finalize a decision on your immigration application.

In Canadian immigration, people typically consider mandamus when their application has been pending for an unreasonably long time without a decision. The Federal Court will look at whether the delay is truly unreasonable and whether the applicant meets the legal test for mandamus (for example, that they have done everything they need to do and there’s no other adequate remedy).

The focus here is on delay - is the wait so excessive and unjustified that the court should step in?

Important: Mandamus won’t order the government to approve your application – it only compels a decision (which could still be an approval or refusal). It’s a way to get a result when you’ve been waiting far beyond normal times, not a guarantee of a positive outcome.

Key Factors That Influence Mandamus Success

Each case is unique, and there is no uniform standard for what counts as an unreasonable delay. The Federal Court has emphasized that “each request for mandamus turns on its own particular facts.” However, through various decisions, the courts have identified several key factors that typically determine whether a mandamus application will succeed. These include:

• The length of time you have been waiting (and how that compares to normal processing times for your type of application).
• The explanation (or lack of explanation) for the delay provided by the immigration authorities.
• The impact or prejudice the delay is causing you (how you are being harmed by waiting).
• Who is responsible for the delay - whether the holdup is on the government’s side or due to something on the applicant’s end.

Let’s look at each of these factors in turn, with examples from recent Federal Court cases. You can read about the full mandamus test here, but these are really what decides delays in immigration applications in almost all cases. The links for the various cases are provided below.

Length of the Delay: How Long Is Too Long?

How long you’ve been waiting is an obvious starting point. Generally, the longer the delay, the more likely a court will consider it potentially unreasonable but there is no fixed cutoff. The courts have refused to set a one-size-fits-all timeline for what constitutes an unreasonable delay. Instead, they compare the wait against context like typical processing times and the specifics of your case. For instance, a delay of a few months beyond the norm probably won’t qualify as unreasonable, whereas delays stretching into several years often raise red flags.

• Shorter Delays (e.g. around 1–2 years) - Courts recognize that immigration processes can be slow, and even delays of a year or two may be considered acceptable in many cases. In Bidgoly, a delay of about four years in processing was under review. The court noted that “there is no uniform standard” [Bidgoly, para 33] and each case depends on its facts. In practice, a two-year delay will not necessarily result in an order of mandamus. For example, in one 2025 case [Cheloei, para 23], an applicant had waited roughly 18 months for a decision. Despite this being longer than the average posted time, the court found the delay “lengthy, [but] not unreasonable” given the circumstances. The applicant was from Iran and had a history of military service in the IRGC (Iran’s Revolutionary Guard), which meant security checks were more complex. The records showed that immigration officials were actively processing the case. In short, a moderate delay can be justified if the case is complex or security-sensitive and progress is being made.
• Exceeding Posted Processing Times - Applicants often point to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)’s posted processing time estimates (for example, “80% of cases in 12 months”). However, the Federal Court has made it clear that going beyond the posted timeline, by itself, isn’t enough to prove an unreasonable delay. In Jia at para 21,  the judge stated that just because the application took longer than the website estimate, “in and of itself” that does not warrant “the extraordinary relief of mandamus.”  Every file is different, and those online processing times are averages or targets – they are not legal deadlines. So, while a much longer wait than advertised can support your mandamus argument, you need more than just a missed standard of service (e.g. online processing time) to win in court.
• Very Long Delays (e.g. 3+ years) - When delays stretch into many years, courts become more skeptical of the government’s excuses. In Jaballah, a spousal sponsorship application languished for almost 7 years, even though such applications were supposed to be processed in roughly 15 months. The court called this delay “unreasonable and unjustified,” and issued a mandamus order giving the Minister 120 days to finalize the application. In another case, Sowane, a father and son’s permanent residence application had been in process for 59 months (nearly 5 years). The court found “no satisfactory justification” for this 59-month delay [paras 25-27] and concluded it was not reasonable. These examples show that multi-year delays, especially far beyond typical timelines, will strongly support a mandamus.

However, even for long waits, context matters - which brings us to the next crucial factor: why is it taking so long?

Explanation for the Delay: Is There a Good Reason?

One of the most important questions the court asks is why your application is delayed. If the government can provide a reasonable, specific explanation and evidence for the delay (for example, a particularly complex security screening that’s ongoing, or waiting on background clearances from multiple agencies), the court may decide whether the wait, though long, is justified. On the other hand, if the government offers no real explanation or only vague excuses, your chances of success increase.

Generally, an Access to Information Request will provide more details in terms of the reasons for the delay, such as security checks.

The Federal Court has been consistently clear that a “blanket statement” about delays is not enough. Immigration authorities bear the onus to provide a satisfactory explanation for a prolonged delay. Here are some key points from the case law:

• “Security check pending” is not an adequate excuse: Simply saying that security screening is in progress, without more detail, does not satisfy the court. Judges have rejected the idea that they should just take the government’s word for it with no evidence. In Jahantigh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the applicant’s study permit was delayed over 3 years due to a security review. The day before the mandamus hearing, IRCC suddenly sent a letter raising security concerns but provided no specifics about the ongoing review or why it was taking so long. The Minister argued they couldn’t get more details from the agency doing the check. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that even national security reviews must be bound by reasonableness [para 25]. The judge held that “if there is a long delay without adequate explanation, then mandamus can follow”. Quoting an earlier decision, the Court noted that “to simply state… that a security investigation by CSIS is ongoing is not an adequate explanation” for a lengthy delay. In other words, a generic “security clearance pending” excuse – without any context or progress details – prevents the Court from assessing whether the wait is reasonable. In Jahantigh, the Court ultimately ordered the government to provide status reports every 30 days, essentially forcing movement on the file.
• The government must show what’s been done: In one recent case, Majidi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 680, an applicant for permanent residence (part of a Start-Up Visa group) had waited about 5 years. IRCC pointed to the fact that a co-applicant’s family member still hadn’t cleared security and implied this was the holdup. The Court found this explanation lacking. There was “simply no information” about the security review itself or why it was taking so long, which “deprive[d] the Court of its ability to assess whether the length of the security review [was] reasonable.” [para 23] The judge compared IRCC’s response to the kind of unacceptable “blanket statement” another judge had criticized in an earlier case. In the end, the Court in Majidi v. Canada was not convinced that saying one person’s security clearance was still pending (with no further details) “on its own, provides a sufficient justification for the delay” in processing Mr. Majidi’s application. This aligns with a broader principle: the immigration department needs to show evidence of ongoing efforts or specific reasons for an extraordinary delay, not just cite general factors.
• No explanation can sink the government’s case: The worst scenario for the immigration authority is when they offer little to no explanation for a long delay. In Tousi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the applicants had been waiting over 62 months (more than 5 years) for a decision. The government argued the mandamus request was premature or flawed, but they failed to provide any reasonable justification for the 62-month delay. The Court flatly noted that ongoing security checks, without more, are “not a sufficient reason” for such a delay. Essentially, if IRCC cannot explain why you’ve been waiting so long – or if their only answer is a stock phrase with no substance – the court is far more likely to find the delay unreasonable. Judges have even said that immigration officers should not expect the Court to simply “accept the delay without evidence” of what’s happening.
• Delays must be justified by the case’s complexity: If the delay is happening because your case genuinely involves complex issues (for example, multiple family members’ security screenings, criminal record verifications from several countries, or other complications), the government should explain that complexity to the Court. A complicated case can justify a longer timeline – but only up to a point. The key is that the explanation must be detailed enough to show the Court that the time taken is proportionate to the task. A vague reference to complexity or workload isn’t enough; it should be case-specific. As one judge put it, “What will constitute an adequate explanation will depend on the relative complexity of the security considerations in each case.” Abdolkhaleghi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), para 26. A mere statement that checks are pending, with no further info, “prevents an analysis of the adequacy of the explanation altogether.” In summary, transparency about the cause of delay (or lack thereof) heavily influences mandamus outcomes – the more opaque the delay, the better it is for the applicant’s case.

Impact on the Applicant: Are You Suffering Due to the Delay?

Another factor the court may consider is how the delay is harming the applicant, often referred to as prejudice. This means looking at what negative consequences the prolonged wait has on your life. Are you separated from family with no end in sight? Unable to start a job or attend school? Suffering stress or health issues? While the courts don’t require every mandamus applicant to show severe personal hardship, evidence of significant prejudice can strengthen your case.

• Is Prejudice Required? There has been some legal debate about whether showing “significant prejudice” is a necessary element for mandamus. In the past, some Federal Court cases (following a case called Vaziri) suggested that an applicant must prove they’ve suffered serious prejudice from the delay (such as psychological trauma, financial loss, etc.) in addition to proving the delay is unreasonable. However, recent jurisprudence indicates this is not a strict requirement in most cases. For example, in Tousi v. Canada, the Court reviewed many cases post-Vaziri and observed that the majority did not explicitly require significant prejudice as a standalone test. The judge in Tousi reasoned that forcing applicants to prove extra prejudice is not justified, because the core issue in mandamus delays is the reasonableness of the delay itself, not the personal fallout. In other words, if a delay is unreasonably long and unexplained, mandamus can be warranted even if the applicant isn’t facing extreme hardship – the injustice is the delay itself. Nonetheless, from a practical perspective, explaining how the delay affects you can only help your case. It paints a fuller picture of why you need a timely decision. While you may not need to show, say, life-or-death consequences, you should certainly describe any real burdens the wait has imposed on you or your family. This can bolster the equitable case for mandamus, even if legally the focus is on the delay’s unreasonableness.
• Family Separation and Hardship: Immigration delays can be especially tough when they keep families apart or put lives on hold. If you can demonstrate specific hardships caused by the wait, the court will take note. For example, in one case an applicant waiting for a parent’s immigration through a provincial nomination program showed that the delay was causing health and financial difficulties. The court agreed that telling someone to just take a vacation to visit family “is not the same as family reunification,” [Peng at para 29] and recognized that ongoing separation was causing real harm. This kind of evidence can make a judge more sympathetic to ordering a prompt decision.
• Career and Other Opportunities Lost: Delays might cause applicants to miss out on jobs, education, or business opportunities (especially in programs like Start-Up Visas or work permits). If you can point to opportunities you’ve lost or cannot pursue because your status is in limbo, that’s a form of prejudice. Courts have noted situations where applicants were unable to work or advance in life due to immigration limbo.

Responsibility for the Delay: Applicant vs. Government

The court will also examine who is responsible for the slow progress of the file. Delays in processing can sometimes be caused (or extended) by the applicant, and if so, that weakens the case for mandamus. On the flip side, if you have fulfilled all your obligations and the ball is entirely in the government’s court, that strengthens your position.

Consider these scenarios:

• Applicant-Caused Delays: If you, as the applicant, contributed to the delay, the court may be less sympathetic. For instance, did you submit incomplete forms or missing documents? Did you delay in responding to immigration officers’ requests for additional information or medical exams? Did you add a family member to your application partway through (which can restart certain security screenings)? Any such factors can reset the clock or at least justify some delay. When reviewing a mandamus application, judges will look at the timeline to see if periods of delay were attributable to the applicant’s own actions. If the record shows that some of the waiting time was because the applicant had to correct something or failed to provide information promptly, the court might discount that period when evaluating reasonableness. Essentially, mandamus is about government inaction – it won’t be granted if the holdup is partly your fault. Make sure you have done everything on your end before claiming the delay is outrageous.
• Government-Caused Delays: If the delay is entirely due to the immigration authorities (e.g., waiting for background checks, file stuck in a queue, administrative backlogs) and you have met all requirements, the responsibility lies with the government. In such cases, the court focuses on whether the officials have failed to act within a reasonable time. As discussed above, the government then must justify why it hasn’t finished the process. In Majidi’s case, the applicants had done everything they needed for their Start-Up Visa application; the only thing pending was the government’s security clearance for someone’s family member, with no clear reason why it was still pending, Since the applicants weren’t causing any delay themselves, it put the onus fully on the government to explain the holdup (which they failed to do adequately). The cleaner your own record – i.e., no contributory delays – the stronger your mandamus case.
• “Queue Jumping” Concerns: The courts are mindful that granting mandamus in one case shouldn’t unjustly push that applicant ahead of others who are also waiting. If everyone in a particular program is facing long waits due to high volume, a judge might be cautious. In fact, the Federal Court has said that mandamus won’t generally be ordered just to let someone “jump the queue” ahead of other applicants in similar positions. This ties back to having a truly excessive or special delay. You need to show that your delay isn’t just normal backlog that many others endure, but something beyond the ordinary. If, for example, most applications like yours are decided in two years and you’ve been waiting five, you can argue you’re not merely trying to leapfrog others – your wait is an outlier. On the other hand, if thousands of others have the same wait time as you, a court might say mandamus for you would be unfair to those other applicants unless you have some other distinguishing factor (such as acute hardship). In sum, courts will consider the broader context to ensure they’re not simply reordering IRCC’s processing queue without good reason.

Conclusion: Weighing Your Mandamus Prospects

To assess the chance of success for a mandamus application in your immigration case, take an honest look at the four factors above:

1. How long have you waited, compared to typical processing times? If your wait is approaching or far exceeding what’s normal for your type of application, especially by years, that leans in your favor - but remember, a moderate delay (even a bit over posted times) is usually not enough on its own.
2. What reasons (if any) has IRCC given for the delay? A specific, credible reason (like a complex security investigation that they can substantiate) can justify patience, whereas no reason or only vague statements strengthen your case for court intervention. The law is clear: long delays demand good explanations, and “to simply state” that something like a security check is ongoing “is not an adequate explanation.”
3. How is the delay affecting you? While not absolutely required in every case, showing tangible prejudice - family separation, career stagnation, emotional or financial strain - can bolster the argument that waiting indefinitely is not acceptable. It personalizes the harm caused by the delay and may tip the scales in a close case.
4. Have you done everything right on your end? If the delay isn’t your fault at all, the focus stays on the government’s inaction. Make sure you’ve provided all information and followed up appropriately (often, writing to IRCC about the delay before going to court is wise). Mandamus is considered a “last resort”– you should ideally give the visa office a chance to fix the delay (or at least ask them for status updates) before asking a judge to step in.

In the end, a successful mandamus case will usually show that the delay is so unreasonable as to amount to a denial of fairness, with the applicant having met all their duties and the government failing to carry out its duty in a timely way. If the facts of your situation line up with the examples of undue delays we’ve discussed - e.g. waiting many years without a good explanation - then a mandamus application could indeed have a strong chance. But if your case is within normal processing times or only slightly over, or if there are understandable reasons for the wait, the Court is likely to deny mandamus, at least until more time passes.

Before leaping into litigation, it’s often best to seek legal advice. Marin Immigration Law can compare your case to the latest mandamus rulings and help gauge if your delay would probably be seen as “unreasonable” by the Court. As the cases show, patience is expected up to a point, but once that point is passed and especially if the silence from IRCC is unexplained, the Federal Court is willing to act. By evaluating the length of delay, the explanations given, the prejudice to you, and who caused the holdup, you can get a clearer picture of where your situation stands on the spectrum – and thus, how likely a mandamus application is to succeed.

Overall, mandamus remains a powerful tool for stalled immigration cases, but it’s reserved for when justice truly demands a timely decision. Use it wisely and with a solid evidentiary foundation, and you’ll maximize your chances of success in finally getting an answer on your immigration journey.

Sources:

Abdolkhaleghi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 729 (“What will constitute an adequate explanation will of course depend on the relative complexity of the security considerations in each case”): https://canlii.ca/t/1kx54

Bidgoly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 283, at para 33 (each mandamus case turns on its facts; no single standard for delay): https://canlii.ca/t/jmqk0

Cheloei v Canada, 2025 FC 820 (18-month delay for applicant with IRGC military service; found not unreasonable as IRCC was taking steps and delay beyond website estimate alone isn’t grounds for mandamus): https://canlii.ca/t/kc1qg

Jaballah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 163 (spousal sponsorship delayed ~7 years; mandamus granted as delay was unreasonable and unjustified): https://canlii.ca/t/k2lf0

Jahantigh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1253, at paras 19, 22 (38-month study permit delay; court rejects vague security delay explanation, citing principle that long delay without adequate explanation can justify mandamus): https://canlii.ca/t/k06c1

Jia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 596 (CanLII), [2015] 3 FCR 143 (IRCC processing times are not binding): https://canlii.ca/t/g7r5q

Majidi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 680, at para 23 (5-year Start-Up Visa delay; court criticizes “blanket” security delay explanation lacking detail): https://canlii.ca/t/kbjl4

Mersad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 543 (mandamus will not be granted just to let one applicant jump the queue ahead of others): https://canlii.ca/t/g79bt

Peng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2 at paras 28-29 (family separation and health issues considered as prejudice in delay) https://canlii.ca/t/k8jcj

Peng v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2 at para 29 (“taking a vacation is not the same as family reunification”): https://canlii.ca/t/k8jcj

Sowane v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 224 (PR application delayed ~59 months with no satisfactory justification for the delay) https://canlii.ca/t/k2r0w

Tousi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 671, at para 4 (62-month delay; onus on Minister to explain delay, blanket “security check” statements are insufficient): https://canlii.ca/t/kbhxk

Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159 at para 58 (origin of “significant prejudice” requirement, which recent cases have questioned): https://canlii.ca/t/1pp25