申请一直没有结果怎么办？联邦法院：IRCC 的等待并非没有期限
Read in English加拿大移民申请等待时间越来越长。 很多申请人在超过 IRCC 公布的处理时间后， 会不断发送 Webform、打电话查询， 甚至联系国会议员， 但得到的回复往往仍然只是： “申请正在处理中。”
那么，一个申请究竟可以被搁置多久？
2026 年 7 月， 加拿大联邦法院在两宗涉及长期审理延误的案件中作出决定， 要求 IRCC 必须在指定期限内对申请作出决定。
这两个案件分别涉及永久居民申请和学习许可申请， 但法院传递出的信息非常相似：
IRCC 可以有合理的审理延误， 但这种等待并不是没有期限的。
一个永久居民申请，等了 42 个月
在 Dai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 931 一案中， 申请人于 2023 年 1 月通过 Home Child Care Provider Pilot 提交永久居民申请。
到了 2026 年， 申请已经等待大约 42 个月。
更令人担忧的是， 根据当时 IRCC 的处理时间计算， 申请人可能还需要再等待约 39 个月。
换句话说， 从递交申请到最终获得决定， 总等待时间可能超过六年。
IRCC 试图以项目的处理安排和申请积压情况 解释这一延误。
但联邦法院并没有接受这种解释。
法院特别指出， 当时相关 Ministerial Instructions 发生变化， 而新的处理机制并没有提供一个透明、 清晰的申请处理体系。
单纯依赖 IRCC 的 processing time calculator， 也不足以解释为什么这个具体申请 需要继续等待如此长的时间。
最终，法院要求 IRCC： 在 60 天内对申请作出最终决定。
学习许可因为安全审查，等待超过三年半
另一个案件 Roghangar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 987 涉及一名伊朗申请人的学习许可。
申请递交后进入安全审查， 此后长期没有实质性进展。
到联邦法院审理时， 申请人已经等待超过三年半。
IRCC 解释， 申请仍然处于 security screening 阶段。
但是法院认为， 仅仅说明“安全审查仍在进行”， 并不足以自动证明三年多的延误就是合理的。
如果政府希望依靠安全审查 解释如此长期的等待， 就需要对这个具体案件提供更有针对性的解释， 而不能只是笼统地引用 “security screening”。
最终，联邦法院要求 IRCC： 在 45 天内对该学习许可申请作出决定。
法院要求 IRCC“作出决定”，并不等于要求批准
这是理解这两个案件非常重要的一点。
法院并没有说： 申请人已经等得够久， 所以 IRCC 必须批准申请。
法院要求的是 IRCC 履行其审理职责， 对申请作出决定。
这种司法救济通常称为 Mandamus（强制令）。
简单来说， 当政府部门负有处理某项申请的职责， 却在没有合理解释的情况下长期不作决定， 申请人在符合一定条件时， 可以向联邦法院寻求 Mandamus， 要求政府完成其应当履行的职责。
但最终的决定仍然可能是批准， 也可能是拒绝。
因此，Mandamus 解决的是： “为什么一直没有决定？”
而不是： “法院能不能要求 IRCC 批准我的申请？”
超过 IRCC 公布的 Processing Time，就可以申请 Mandamus 吗？
这是这类案件最容易产生的误解。
然而事实并非如此。
IRCC 公布的 processing time 可以作为判断延误是否异常的参考， 但超过公布时间本身， 并不意味着延误在法律上一定已经达到 “不合理”的程度。
法院通常需要结合具体情况判断，例如：
- 申请已经等待了多长时间；
- 这类申请本身需要多长时间处理；
- 延误是否由申请人自己造成；
- 是否存在安全审查、背景调查或其他复杂因素；
- IRCC 是否能够对长期延误提供合理而具体的解释；
- 申请人此前是否已经尝试通过其他方式了解或推动案件。
所以， 一个申请超过正常处理时间几个月， 与一个申请在没有明确解释的情况下 被搁置三四年， 显然不是同一种情况。
这两个案件真正值得关注的地方
这两个案件的重要意义， 并不是给所有等待中的申请人 提供了一条“快速通道”。
真正值得关注的是： IRCC 不能仅仅用 “案件积压”、 “正在处理中” 或者“安全审查” 这样的笼统理由， 无限期解释一个长期没有决定的申请。
当等待时间越来越长， 政府也可能需要回答一个更具体的问题：
为什么这个申请需要等待这么久？
如果长期延误已经明显超出 正常处理所需要的时间， 而 IRCC 又无法提供令人信服的解释， 联邦法院在适当情况下可以介入。
对正在等待申请结果的人有什么启示？
如果申请只是刚刚超过 IRCC 公布的正常处理时间， 一般没有必要立即考虑联邦法院程序。
但如果申请已经长期没有进展， 特别是明显超过正常处理时间很多， 申请人可以开始系统地了解 自己的案件究竟停留在哪里。
例如，可以：
- 查看 IRCC 的最新处理时间；
- 通过 Webform 查询案件进度；
- 申请 GCMS notes 了解内部处理记录；
- 必要时联系当地国会议员办公室查询。
如果经过这些步骤， 申请仍然长期停滞， 而且 IRCC 无法对延误提供具体解释， 就可以进一步咨询加拿大律师， 评估是否已经达到申请 Mandamus 的条件。
需要特别提醒的是， 联邦法院诉讼属于法律程序。
RCIC 可以帮助申请人分析移民申请本身 以及整理案件情况， 但联邦法院程序需要由具备相应执业资格的 加拿大律师代理。
写在最后
加拿大目前确实存在大量移民和临时居民申请积压， 因此“等待”已经成为很多申请过程的一部分。
但是， 这两宗 2026 年的联邦法院判决再次说明： 等待可以是合理的， 但等待本身不能成为无限期不作决定的理由。
对于申请人来说， 真正需要判断的并不是简单地问： “我的申请是不是已经超过 Processing Time？”
更应该进一步问：
“这个延误是否仍然有合理解释？”
“我的案件究竟为什么还没有决定？”
这两个问题， 才是判断下一步应该继续等待、 进一步查询， 还是考虑法律救济的关键。
What Can You Do When IRCC Takes Too Long? Federal Court Says Processing Delays Have Limits
Long processing times have become increasingly common in Canadian immigration applications. When an application exceeds IRCC’s published processing time, applicants often submit Webforms, call IRCC, or contact their Member of Parliament, only to receive the same response: the application is still in process.
But how long can an application remain pending?
In two 2026 Federal Court decisions involving significant processing delays, the Court ordered IRCC to make decisions within specified periods.
Although the cases involved different types of applications— one for permanent residence and the other for a study permit— they highlight an important principle:
IRCC may experience reasonable processing delays, but an application cannot simply remain undecided indefinitely without adequate justification.
A Permanent Residence Application Pending for 42 Months
In Dai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 931 , the applicant submitted a 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.
More importantly, based on IRCC’s processing estimates at the time, the applicant could potentially have faced another 39 months of waiting.
This would have resulted in a total processing period of more than six years.
IRCC relied on the administration of the program and existing processing backlogs to explain the delay.
The Court was not satisfied with that explanation.
The Court considered changes to the applicable Ministerial Instructions and found that relying simply on IRCC’s processing-time calculator was not sufficient to explain why this particular application should remain pending for such an extended period.
The Court ultimately ordered IRCC to make a final decision on the application within 60 days.
A Study Permit Delayed for More Than Three and a Half Years
The second case, Roghangar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 987 , involved an Iranian applicant whose study permit application had entered security screening.
By the time the case reached the Federal Court, the application had been pending for more than three and a half years.
IRCC explained that security screening was still underway.
However, the Court found that simply stating that an application remained under security screening was not necessarily sufficient to justify such an extensive delay.
Where the government relies on security screening to explain a lengthy processing period, the circumstances of the particular case still matter.
A general reference to ongoing screening does not automatically make every delay reasonable.
The Federal Court ordered IRCC to make a decision on the study permit application within 45 days.
An Order to Make a Decision Is Not an Order to Approve the Application
This is one of the most important distinctions in understanding these cases.
The Federal Court did not order IRCC to approve either application.
Instead, it ordered IRCC to perform its duty and make a decision.
This type of judicial remedy is generally known as mandamus.
In simple terms, where a government authority has a duty to deal with an application but fails to do so within a reasonable period without adequate justification, an applicant may, in appropriate circumstances, ask the Federal Court to compel the authority to act.
The eventual decision may still be an approval or a refusal.
Mandamus therefore addresses the question: “Why has no decision been made?”
It does not mean: “Can the Court order IRCC to approve my application?”
Can You Seek Mandamus Once You Exceed IRCC’s Processing Time?
Not necessarily.
This is perhaps the most common misunderstanding surrounding mandamus applications.
IRCC’s published processing times may be relevant when assessing whether a delay has become unusual, but simply exceeding the posted processing time does not automatically make a delay legally unreasonable.
The Court may consider a number of factors, including:
- how long the application has been pending;
- the normal processing period for that type of application;
- whether any part of the delay was caused by the applicant;
- whether security screening, background checks, or other complexities are involved;
- whether IRCC has provided a reasonable and case-specific explanation for the delay; and
- what steps the applicant has already taken to obtain information or move the application forward.
An application that has exceeded the normal processing time by several months is therefore very different from one that has remained unresolved for three or four years without a meaningful explanation.
Why These Cases Matter
These decisions should not be understood as creating a shortcut for applicants who simply want faster processing.
Their significance is more specific.
IRCC cannot necessarily rely indefinitely on general explanations such as “processing backlogs,” “the application is in process,” or “security screening is ongoing” when faced with an exceptionally lengthy delay.
As the delay becomes longer, an important question may arise:
Why does this particular application still require so much additional time?
Where a delay has become clearly excessive and IRCC cannot provide an adequate explanation, intervention by the Federal Court may become possible.
What Should Applicants Do When an Application Has Been Pending for Too Long?
If an application has only recently exceeded IRCC’s published processing time, Federal Court proceedings will generally not be the first step.
Applicants may first consider:
- checking current IRCC processing times;
- submitting a Webform inquiry;
- requesting GCMS notes to better understand what has happened on the file; or
- contacting their local Member of Parliament for assistance with a status inquiry.
However, if an application has been significantly delayed, there has been little or no meaningful progress, and IRCC cannot provide a specific explanation for the delay, it may be appropriate to consult a Canadian lawyer to assess whether the circumstances could support an application for mandamus.
It is also important to distinguish immigration consulting services from Federal Court representation.
An RCIC may assist with reviewing the immigration history and circumstances of the application, but Federal Court proceedings require representation by a lawyer authorized to practise before the Court.
Final Thoughts
Canada’s immigration system continues to face significant processing pressures, and waiting has unfortunately become part of the experience for many applicants.
These Federal Court decisions nevertheless provide an important reminder: a reasonable delay may be acceptable, but delay itself cannot automatically justify leaving an application unresolved indefinitely.
For applicants facing a lengthy wait, the key question is therefore not simply:
“Has my application exceeded IRCC’s processing time?”
The more important questions are:
“Is there still a reasonable explanation for the delay?”
“Why has my particular application still not received a decision?”
The answers to those questions may help determine whether the appropriate next step is to continue waiting, seek further information from IRCC, or obtain legal advice regarding possible judicial remedies.