Canadian Immigration Security Screening: Why the Wait and What You Can Do

What security screening examines, why delays happen, and what applicants can do.

Being referred for security screening does not mean a security concern has been established. A long period without updates does not, by itself, predict refusal.

“My medical exam is passed and I submitted my police certificate. Why is my application still in background checks?” For many Canadian immigration applicants, the hardest part is waiting without a clear end date while work, study and family plans remain uncertain. Understanding security screening requires separating the legal criteria, the roles of the agencies involved and the limits of each follow-up option.

1. Why is security screening needed after a police certificate?

Security screening and criminal-record checks are related but distinct. Section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) addresses security inadmissibility, including espionage, specified forms of subversion, terrorism, danger to Canada’s security and membership in certain organizations. Section 36 separately addresses criminality and serious criminality. Under section 33, the facts relevant to sections 34–37 may be assessed using the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard.

A clean police certificate or the absence of a criminal conviction therefore does not resolve every security question. Equally, a finding of inadmissibility must be tied to the statutory grounds and supporting evidence, rather than speculation.

There are also limits on interpretation. In Mason v. Canada, 2023 SCC 21, the Supreme Court held that the violent conduct addressed by section 34(1)(e) must have a connection to national security or the security of Canada. Ordinary violence cannot automatically be placed within that security provision.

2. Which agency is reviewing the file?

IRCC processes applications and assesses eligibility and admissibility.
CBSA participates in immigration security screening and provides assessments.
CSIS provides security advice and intelligence. It does not decide whether a visa or permanent residence application is approved.

IRCC describes initial screening by immigration officers for temporary and permanent residence applications, with some files referred for Comprehensive Security Screening. All in-Canada refugee claims are assessed by CBSA and CSIS for comprehensive security screening. Citizenship grant applications for applicants aged 15.5 or older are referred to CSIS for screening.

“Background check in progress” in an online account does not, on its own, establish that a file has been referred for comprehensive screening. Departmental replies and available records can help clarify the stage. Completion of CSIS’s work is also not the same as completion of the immigration application: its advice must still be considered in the subsequent decision-making process. IRCC makes the visa or permanent residence decision.

3. Backlogs provide context, not an individual forecast

CSIS’s 2025 Public Report lists 438,600 referrals received and 427,100 completed under its Immigration and Citizenship Screening Program. Receipts exceeded completions by approximately 11,500. These totals include citizenship files and should not be described as a permanent residence backlog. The report also says the number of immigration applications awaiting security screening remained historically high despite fewer new applications.

In material for an April 20, 2026 parliamentary committee appearance, CBSA reported the following security screening inventory as of April 1, 2026:

Temporary residence applications: 60,318.
Permanent residence applications: 27,454.
Asylum claims: 88,430.
Total: 176,202.

The same material states that CBSA closed 106,289 security screening files in fiscal year 2025–2026, of which 1,100, or approximately 1%, had non-favourable results.

This is a snapshot of a particular agency’s work using a particular reporting scope. It does not mean that applicants in security screening have a 99% immigration approval rate. Closing a security screening file and approving an immigration application are different events. These figures also cannot predict how many more months an individual will wait.

4. Records requests, MP enquiries and complaints have different roles

ATIP requests: obtaining information

Applicants may request records through applicable access-to-information and privacy procedures (ATIP), including records commonly called GCMS notes. Choose the department according to the information sought and comply with the relevant eligibility and consent requirements.

Records can help explain the file and establish a timeline. They do not themselves compel progress. CSIS expressly states that its ATIP section only processes records and has no authority to intervene in security screening. High request volumes can also delay ATIP responses.

MP enquiries: asking about progress

Residents and citizens can contact their constituency’s federal Member of Parliament. The office may enquire through IRCC’s Ministerial Centre for Members of Parliament & Senators. The liaison service completed approximately 74,000 appointments in fiscal year 2024–2025.

The centre’s staff do not make decisions on individual applications. An enquiry may clarify status or procedure; it does not replace an officer’s decision or guarantee faster security screening.

Oversight complaints: addressing concerns about delay

The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) investigates complaints within its mandate. CSIS’s 2025 Public Report says complaints against CSIS filed with NSIRA increased by 290% between 2024 and 2025; over 91% concerned alleged delays in immigration security screening. NSIRA held an en banc hearing. CSIS also states that complaints do not cause it to expedite application processing.

Records requests, MP enquiries, complaints and other follow-up efforts should never be marketed as guaranteed ways to accelerate a file.

5. Can mandamus help? Two case summaries illustrate the evidence question

Where delay may be unreasonable, an applicant can seek a legal assessment of whether to apply to the Federal Court for mandamus. The remedy seeks performance of a public duty to decide; it does not ask the Court to approve the underlying immigration application.

The following examples are drawn from publicly available law-firm case summaries. The full Federal Court judgments were not independently reviewed for this article, so these examples should not be used to infer a universal litigation threshold.

Liu v. Canada, 2025 FC 1718: mandamus granted

The published summary describes a York University PhD student with a valid study permit who waited approximately 27 months for a temporary resident visa needed for travel and re-entry. It reports a comparison with an approximately 27-day processing time as of August 2025 and a lack of direct, file-specific evidence supporting the government’s general security-screening explanation. According to the summary, the Court ordered a decision within 60 days.

Samiei v. Canada, 2026 FC 1090: mandamus dismissed

The published summary concerns an Iranian study permit applicant who had waited approximately 15 months. It describes two weaknesses in the claim: no evidence establishing the applicable normal processing benchmark, and records showing a specific request for military-service information, supporting the government’s position that review was taking place.

The contrast is about evidence, not a fixed number of months. Questions include whether the wait exceeds what the particular process reasonably requires, whether the applicant caused any of the delay, whether the government has a specific explanation, and whether a decision was previously requested with a reasonable opportunity to respond. These issues require assessment of the full record by an appropriately qualified Canadian lawyer.

6. What to organize while waiting

Build a verifiable case timeline rather than trying to interpret every account message:

Application milestones: submission, biometrics, medical examination, additional-document requests and departmental replies.
Personal history: education, employment, residence, travel and military service, checked for consistency across applications.
Follow-up records: enquiries, original replies and records obtained.
Practical consequences: evidence of deferred studies, employment disruption or family separation.
Immediate deadlines: document requests, procedural fairness letters, and the expiry of existing status or permits.

Do not omit, soften or rewrite important history in an attempt to reduce the chance of security screening. Section 16 of IRPA requires truthful answers and relevant evidence. Withholding or misstating material facts can also raise misrepresentation issues under section 40.

Illustrative composite, not an identifiable client: an applicant omitted earlier military service from a supplementary form out of concern about delays. An officer identified inconsistencies with previous records and requested an explanation. The omission created additional clarification work and credibility concerns instead of simplifying the process.

If you receive a procedural fairness letter alleging security inadmissibility, focus on the specific allegations, evidence and response deadline, and promptly seek advice from a Canadian immigration lawyer experienced in this area.

The useful first step is to organize the facts: establish where the file stands, then assess whether an enquiry, complaint or possible judicial remedy fits the circumstances. For an initial assessment, send a brief description of your timeline and available records to info@inkway.org.

Sources and further reading

This article provides general information and public education, not individual legal advice. Adapted from the supplied manuscript; official sources checked October 1, 2026. The two Federal Court examples rely on public summaries, not independent review of the full judgments. The application of law, procedures and case law depends on the facts. Federal Court litigation should be assessed by an appropriately qualified Canadian lawyer.