Jie “Ellen” Lin, RCIC

Still Within IRCC’s Estimated Processing Time — But Already Waiting Too Long? What Dai v. Canada Tells Applicants

When a Canadian immigration application takes longer than expected, one of the first things applicants usually do is check IRCC’s online processing time.

If the system indicates that the application is still within the estimated processing period, most applicants assume there is little they can do other than continue waiting.

A recent Federal Court decision, Dai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 931 , raises an interesting question:

She Had Already Waited 42 Months — and IRCC Estimated Another 39 Months

Dai submitted her permanent residence application under the Home Child Care Provider Pilot in January 2023.

By the time the matter reached the Federal Court, approximately 42 months had passed without a final decision.

What makes this case particularly interesting is that this was not simply a situation where the applicant had exceeded IRCC’s published processing time.

Based on the processing information available at the time, IRCC estimated that she could still have approximately 39 more months to wait.

In other words, from the perspective of IRCC’s processing system, her application was still in the queue.

If processing continued at that pace, the total period between submission and a final decision could potentially exceed six years.

IRCC Processing Times Are Not a Legal “Safe Zone”

This is perhaps the most important point arising from Dai.

IRCC’s published processing times help applicants understand how long applications may currently take.

But they do not necessarily mean that:

In a mandamus application, the Court is not limited to asking whether the applicant has exceeded the processing time displayed on IRCC’s website.

A more fundamental question may be:

That is different from simply asking how long IRCC currently estimates an application will take.

The Issue in Dai Was More Than Just a Large Backlog

There was another important aspect of the case.

The Home Child Care Provider Pilot had been governed by Ministerial Instructions that affected how applications were processed, including annual intake and processing arrangements.

Those instructions subsequently changed.

The Court examined what happened to applications that remained in the processing inventory following those changes and whether there continued to be a sufficiently clear basis for the lengthy delay.

This distinction matters.

Telling an applicant:

may provide an estimate of how long the applicant is likely to wait in practice.

But it does not necessarily answer a different question:

Ultimately, the Federal Court was not satisfied that the delay had been adequately justified and ordered IRCC to make a decision on Dai’s permanent residence application within 60 days.

Does This Mean You Can Seek Mandamus While Still Within IRCC’s Processing Time?

Not necessarily.

Dai should not be interpreted as creating a general rule that applicants can seek mandamus simply because they are unhappy with the length of processing, even if they remain within IRCC’s estimated timeline.

Mandamus is a discretionary judicial remedy, and whether a delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances of the individual case.

Relevant considerations may include:

• the actual length of the delay;
• the nature of the immigration program;
• the complexity of the application;
• whether the applicant contributed to the delay;
• the reasons provided by the government; and
• whether other adequate remedies remain available.

Dai had already waited approximately 42 months and, based on the information available at the time, potentially faced another 39 months of waiting.

The particular processing history and policy framework of the caregiver program were also important to the Court’s analysis.

The decision therefore should not be automatically applied to every immigration application experiencing a long processing time.

IRCC’s Processing Time and the Court’s Question Are Not Exactly the Same

This is perhaps the most useful lesson from Dai for applicants.

When we check IRCC’s processing time, we are essentially asking:

In a mandamus case, however, the Court may need to consider a different question:

The two questions are related, but they are not the same.

IRCC’s published processing time can certainly be relevant when assessing delay, but it is not necessarily the sole measure of whether a delay is reasonable.

What Does This Mean for Applicants Who Have Been Waiting a Long Time?

An application that is proceeding normally— or has only recently exceeded IRCC’s published processing time— does not automatically justify Federal Court proceedings.

However, where an application has remained unresolved for years with little meaningful progress, the fact that IRCC’s website still indicates a lengthy processing period does not necessarily mean that the applicant must simply continue waiting indefinitely.

The more useful questions may be:

• Why has the application not been finalized?
• Is there a specific and reasonable explanation for the prolonged delay?
• Is the application still moving through a clearly defined processing framework?

Applicants experiencing unusually lengthy delays may consider obtaining more information through IRCC Webform inquiries, GCMS notes, or other available channels.

Where the delay becomes exceptional, legal advice may also be appropriate to assess whether mandamus could be available.

Final Thoughts

Perhaps the most striking part of Dai is not the 42 months already waited, or even the 39 months that IRCC estimated might still remain.

It is the question created when those two numbers are considered together:

Dai provides an important reminder that IRCC’s processing time is relevant, but it is not necessarily the final legal measure of whether an administrative delay is reasonable.

For applicants facing an exceptionally long wait, the most important question may therefore not always be: