2 new Federal Court decisions ordered Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to decide long-delayed applications within fixed timelines after finding that the department failed to justify the delays.
In one case, a study permit applicant had been stuck in security screening for more than three and a half years with no clear explanation for why the assessment remained incomplete.
In another case, a caregiver permanent residence applicant who had waited more than 42 months was told she faced another 39 months of waiting.
Both rulings applied a legal remedy called “mandamus,” which compels the government departments to perform a duty they have unreasonably failed to carry out.
The decisions do not mean that every applicant with a delayed file can now force IRCC to decide within 45 or 60 days, but they do establish that courts are increasingly rejecting vague justifications for prolonged processing delays.
This article explains both rulings, how mandamus works, what it costs, and what applicants in similar situations can realistically do.
Table of Contents
Dai v. Canada: 42 Months Waiting for a Caregiver PR Decision
On July 10, 2026, Justice Michael Battista of the Federal Court ordered IRCC to render a final decision on Yu Dai’s permanent residence application within 60 days.
Dai applied for permanent residence under the Home Child Care Provider pilot program on January 1, 2023.
By mid-2026, she had waited approximately 42 months, and IRCC’s processing time calculator estimated another 39 months remaining, projecting a total wait of over six and a half years.
The court found that a Ministerial Instruction issued in December 2025 had repealed the previous processing framework without replacing it with any new policy.
Justice Battista described this as a “processing policy vacuum” and ruled that IRCC could not rely on a policy that contained no transparent, intelligible processing system to justify the delay.
The court noted that IRCC’s processing time calculator was “not a policy, it does not describe the manner of processing, and it provides no assurance that other applications will not at some point be placed ahead of the Applicant.”
The decision cited the program’s own stated goal of providing stability to caregivers already living and working in Canada, concluding that open-ended delay undermines rather than serves that purpose.
Approximately 38,800 applicants remain in the same caregiver program queue, with 18,300 ahead of Dai’s file at the time of the ruling.
Roghangar v. Canada: 3.5 Years Waiting on a Study Permit
On July 22, 2026, the Federal Court ordered IRCC to decide a study permit application that had been pending for more than three and a half years, a timeline that exceeds even the longest study permit processing estimates IRCC has published in 2026.
The applicant, an Iranian citizen, had submitted a study permit application that became stuck in security screening with no substantive updates or timeline provided by IRCC.
The court found that vague statements about an ongoing security assessment did not constitute a satisfactory justification for the delay.
IRCC’s published service standard for study permit processing is 60 days, making a delay of more than 42 months approximately 21 times longer than the department’s own benchmark.
The court ordered IRCC to make a decision on the application within 45 days.
The ruling reinforced a growing body of case law holding that IRCC cannot indefinitely park applications behind a general reference to security screening without providing case-specific evidence of why the assessment is taking as long as it is.
Two Rulings at a Glance
| Detail | Dai v. Canada | Roghangar v. Canada |
| Released | July 10, 2026 | July 22, 2026 |
| Citation | 2026 FC 931 | 2026 FC 987 |
| Application type | Permanent residence (caregiver) | Study permit |
| Wait at time of ruling | ~42 months | ~42 months |
| IRCC’s stated reason | Processing policy vacuum | Security screening |
| Court’s finding | Delay unreasonable, no transparent policy | Delay unreasonable, vague justification |
| Order | Decision within 60 days | Decision within 45 days |
A Broader Pattern of Courts Demanding Explanations
These two decisions are part of a broader pattern in which the Federal Court has been increasingly demanding that IRCC provide specific, intelligible explanations when applications remain unresolved for years.
In a separate July 2026 ruling, the court emphasized that ministerial processing priorities do not eliminate the obligation to justify prolonged delays on individual files.
The Federal Court of Appeal’s 2026 decision in Benison v. Canada confirmed that once an applicant shows the delay is prima facie unreasonable, the burden shifts to IRCC to justify it with real, case-specific evidence.
The Benison ruling also held that concerns about “queue jumping” alone cannot prevent a mandamus order, removing one of the government’s most frequently cited arguments against compelling individual decisions.
Together, these rulings signal that applicants stuck in extended processing backlogs have a growing body of case law to support mandamus applications when IRCC’s explanations fall short.
How Mandamus Works in Immigration Cases
Mandamus is a court order that compels a government authority to perform a public legal duty it has unreasonably failed to carry out.
In immigration cases, it forces IRCC to make a decision on a pending application, but it does not dictate what that decision must be.
A mandamus order can result in either an approval or a refusal, and applicants must understand that compelling a decision is not the same as guaranteeing a positive outcome, a distinction that also applies to Express Entry invitations, which are invitations to apply rather than approvals.
Canadian courts apply the eight-factor test from Apotex v. Canada (Attorney General) to determine whether mandamus should be granted, a framework that applies across all immigration program categories.
The core question is whether the delay is unreasonable, which is assessed under the three-part Conille v. Canada test requiring the applicant to show that the delay exceeds what the process requires, that the applicant did not cause the delay, and that IRCC has no satisfactory justification.
Applicants must file an application for leave and judicial review at the Federal Court within 15 days of becoming aware that the delay is unreasonable.
Legal representation is not mandatory for Federal Court proceedings, but it is strongly recommended given the complexity of the process and the need to present case-specific evidence, affidavits, and legal arguments.
What It Costs and What Applicants Should Know
Filing a mandamus application at the Federal Court involves a filing fee, which is currently a few hundred dollars, plus legal costs if an applicant retains a lawyer.
Legal fees for mandamus applications typically range from several thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars or more depending on the complexity of the case and the jurisdiction.
Not every delayed application will produce the same result in court because mandamus decisions are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific facts, the length of the delay, and the quality of IRCC’s justification.
However, in legal terms, the Dai and Roghangar decisions add to a growing set of precedents that applicants and their representatives can cite when arguing that their own delays are unreasonable.
Before filing a mandamus application, applicants should take several practical steps to build the strongest possible case.
First, request GCMS notes through an Access to Information and Privacy request, as these notes reveal the internal processing history of the file and any reasons for delay that IRCC has documented.
Second, submit a case-specific inquiry through the IRCC web form after the published processing time has elapsed, and document the response or lack of response.
Third, contact your Member of Parliament’s office to request a ministerial inquiry, which creates an additional paper trail showing that the applicant exhausted informal remedies before turning to the court.
Fourth, consult a licensed immigration lawyer to assess whether the specific facts of the case meet the legal threshold for mandamus.
Who Is Most Affected by IRCC Delays
The two July rulings addressed different corners of the immigration system, but IRCC’s backlog data shows that processing delays affect applicants across virtually every category.
The most severe backlogs as of the latest reporting cycle include humanitarian and compassionate grounds applications with processing estimates exceeding ten years, caregiver program applications with waits of five to six years, and Start-Up Visa applicants facing processing times of three to five years.
Study permit and work permit applicants face shorter but still significant delays, particularly those whose files are flagged for enhanced security screening.
Family sponsorship applicants, especially in the parents and grandparents category, have seen processing times improve in some streams but remain well above service standards in others.
Express Entry applicants who have received invitations and submitted permanent residence applications generally face shorter waits of six to seven months under the Canadian Experience Class, but files flagged for additional review can extend well beyond that.
Important Limitations of These Rulings
Both court orders apply only to the specific applicants who brought the cases, and applicants should not assume that any pending immigration application will automatically receive the same treatment.
IRCC is not required by either ruling to accelerate, reprioritize, or change its processing approach for any other applicant.
Federal Court judges are not bound by each other’s decisions, meaning another judge could rule differently on similar facts.
The Dai decision itself acknowledged a divergence from a contemporaneous ruling in Hussain v. Canada (2026 FC 885), which reached a different conclusion on whether the same Ministerial Instructions could justify caregiver delays.
That divergence means the legal landscape is not yet settled, and future rulings or an appeal court decision could clarify or modify the current framework, much as the departmental plan for 2026 may shape IRCC’s response to these decisions.
Applicants should also understand that IRCC may respond to these rulings by issuing new Ministerial Instructions with a clear processing framework, which could restore a legally defensible justification for future delays.
Despite these limitations, the rulings are persuasive precedents that strengthen the position of applicants whose files have been pending for years without a specific, intelligible explanation from IRCC.
The Dai and Roghangar decisions add to a growing body of Federal Court jurisprudence that holds IRCC accountable for providing specific, intelligible justifications when applications remain unresolved for years.
Applicants who believe their files have been unreasonably delayed should begin by requesting their GCMS notes and consulting a licensed legal professional to assess whether their case meets the threshold for mandamus.
These rulings do not open the door for every delayed applicant to force a decision within 45 or 60 days, but they do confirm that courts will intervene when IRCC’s explanations amount to nothing more than vague references to backlogs or screening without case-specific substance.
Candidates should monitor the official IRCC processing times page and the Federal Court decisions database for further developments in this area.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Does mandamus guarantee that my application will be approved?
No, mandamus compels IRCC to make a decision, not to approve the application. The decision could be an approval, a refusal, or a request for additional information. Applicants who receive a refusal after a mandamus order retain the right to challenge that refusal through judicial review if the decision was made in error.
How long does a mandamus application typically take from filing to decision?
Federal Court mandamus proceedings typically take six to twelve months from the initial filing to a hearing and decision, though timelines vary depending on the court’s schedule and the complexity of the case. In some cases, IRCC decides the application after the mandamus filing but before the hearing, which can render the court proceeding moot. This outcome, while frustrating for applicants who have already incurred legal costs, still achieves the underlying goal of forcing movement on the file.
Can I file for mandamus without a lawyer?
Applicants are permitted to represent themselves before the Federal Court, and legal representation is not mandatory. However, mandamus applications require detailed affidavits, legal memoranda, and familiarity with Federal Court procedures, making professional legal representation strongly advisable. Immigration consultants can provide advice and prepare supporting documentation, but only lawyers licensed in a Canadian province or territory can represent applicants in Federal Court proceedings.
Does filing for mandamus affect my relationship with IRCC or prejudice my application?
IRCC is legally prohibited from retaliating against applicants who exercise their right to seek judicial review, a protection that extends across all immigration program categories including provincial nominees. Filing a mandamus application is a lawful use of the court system and should not negatively affect how IRCC assesses the merits of the underlying application. Applicants should nonetheless ensure that their application file is complete and that they have responded to all IRCC requests, as any gap in their own compliance could weaken their mandamus case.
Are there alternatives to mandamus for applicants stuck in processing delays?
Before pursuing mandamus, applicants should exhaust informal remedies, including submitting a case inquiry through the IRCC web form, contacting their Member of Parliament for a ministerial inquiry, and requesting GCMS notes through an ATIP request to understand what is happening with their file. These steps create a paper trail that strengthens a mandamus case if informal remedies fail to produce movement, as documented in our coverage of the PGWP refusal protests where procedural documentation proved critical. Applicants should also check whether alternative immigration pathways exist that could achieve their immigration goal through a different program while the delayed application remains pending.
Fact-Checked: All case details in this article have been verified against published Federal Court decisions and primary source reporting as of August 3, 2026.
Disclaimer: This article is published by Immigration News Canada for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Mandamus outcomes are case-specific. Consult a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant or licensed immigration lawyer before taking legal action.
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
You may also like: New US Visa Early Appointments Now Available Across Canada
New Minimum Wage In 5 Canadian Provinces Coming In October 2026
New Ontario-OINP Permanent Residence Pathway Intake Is Now Open
Trump Pauses These U.S. Immigrant Visas Effective Immediately