1,020 Days Waiting for PR: Court Orders IRCC to Decide in 30 Days

Case: Javadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1342 — judicial review granted, mandamus ordered

What happened

The applicant, an Iranian citizen living in Canada on a work permit with her spouse, applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class on August 26, 2023, including her spouse as a dependent. At the time, IRCC’s published service standard for such applications was 180 days, and the average processing time was about seven months.

By the time of the hearing, they had been waiting over 1,020 days. The timeline tells the story:

• All requested information, including her spouse’s military-service documents, was supplied by the end of December 2023, and the security information was marked complete in early January 2024.
• After that, no substantive work occurred on the file.
• In February 2025, she sent IRCC a formal demand letter. She received no response.
• In March 2025, she applied for judicial review, asking the Court to order IRCC to decide within 30 days.
• In May 2025, IRCC asked again for the same military-service documents she had already provided in December 2023. She re-supplied them within two days.
• Her spouse’s security screening was marked “passed” in April 2026. Still no decision.

What the Court decided

The Federal Court granted the application and issued a writ of mandamus — an order compelling IRCC to process and determine the application within 30 days of the judgment — plus $2,000 in costs:

1. The delay was unreasonable on its face. The wait was more than five times IRCC’s published service standard, and the Minister offered no evidence that CEC applications genuinely take longer than the standard or the average.
2. “Security screening” is not a blanket excuse. The Minister argued the delay was justified by security screening, but provided no evidence about what was particular to this applicant that required a drastically lengthier process. Blanket assertions that screening is important do not explain the delay in a specific case.
3. The balance of convenience favoured relief. The Minister argued it must protect the integrity of the immigration system — but offered no evidence that ordering a decision would harm that integrity. The Court found granting the order would mitigate the ongoing failure the delay itself represented.
4. You do not need to prove prejudice. The Minister argued the delays caused no proven prejudice. The Court noted the extensive evidence of hardship — and confirmed that applicants are not required to establish prejudice to succeed in mandamus.

The Court also noted it would remain seized of the matter, so the parties could seek further direction if needed.

What this means for you

A multi-year processing delay is challengeable — and this case sets out the playbook:

• Send a formal demand letter first. A mandamus application needs a prior demand, a reasonable time to comply, and then a refusal — express or implied by unreasonable delay. The demand letter starts that clock.
• Measure the delay against the standard. IRCC’s published service standards are relevant evidence. A wait several times the standard, with no case-specific explanation, is hard for IRCC to defend.
• “Security screening” needs specifics. IRCC cannot hide behind screening in general terms. The Court needs information about the review and the reasons for its length in your particular case.
• You do not need to prove prejudice. Hardship helps, but it is not a legal requirement for mandamus.

If your application has been sitting far beyond its service standard with no substantive movement, the delay itself may be your remedy.

How VG Immigration Services can help

If your permanent residence application has been waiting far beyond IRCC’s published processing time, book a consultation at vgis.ca or message us on WhatsApp at 416-578-9269. A demand letter is the first step — and the clock for it starts with you.

This post summarizes a Federal Court decision for general information. It is not legal advice for a specific case, and every file turns on its own facts and evidence.