我想记录一下我们申请加拿大 work permit 的过程。主要原因是，我发现 academic 圈子里其实有不少人经历过类似的等待、安调、调档、webform、MP、学校支持信，甚至 mandamus，但大家公开说的时候往往比较概括，比如“等了很久，最后拿到了”。中间到底做了什么、哪些渠道试过、哪些信息其实没有用，反而很少有人具体写。
这篇不是法律建议，也不一定适用于每个人。只是记录一下我们自己的时间线，以及过程中做过的一些事情。希望对以后遇到类似情况的人有一点参考价值。
我们是在 2024 年 11 月 19 日 提交加拿大 work permit 申请的。
最后是在 2026 年 3 月 24 日 收到批准的。
总共大概等了 16 个月。
一开始我们并没有觉得这个事情会拖这么久。当时官网显示的 processing time 大概是 16 周，所以我们的心理预期也比较简单：可能慢一点，但大概等满 16 周应该会有结果。
然后我们真的等满了 16 周。
等过这个时间以后，再去看官网 processing time，发现它突然变成了大概 80 周 左右。那个时候我们才开始意识到，这可能不是一个普通的 delay，而是一个会持续很久的事情。
后来我们逐渐意识到，申请大概率是进入了 security screening / 安调。
这个过程对申请人来说非常不透明。你看到的基本就是申请没有结果，webform 回复说还在处理中，但没有办法知道 file 到底在哪里，也不知道是 IRCC、CBSA、CSIS 哪个环节在动，或者有没有人在动。
中间有很长一段时间会有一种“掉档”的感觉。不是说真的丢了，而是从外面看不到任何实质性进展。你也没有一个明确的 request 可以回应，不是说缺了某份材料、补上就可以了。它就是在一个你看不到的流程里。
整个过程中，我们一直在给 IRCC 发 webform。
每次有新的情况，或者长时间没有 update，或者需要说明 delay 对我们的影响，我们都会继续发。大多数回复都比较模板化，基本就是 application is still in process，或者说还在处理中，没有太多实质信息。
但我们还是一直坚持做。主要原因是中介 / 律师一直建议我们保持 follow-up。即使 webform 本身不能直接推动 file，它至少可以留下记录，说明我们一直在主动询问，也一直在解释 delay 对我们的实际影响。
所以我的感觉是：webform 不一定有用，但最好还是坚持做，并且保留好每一次提交和回复的记录。
我们也做了调档，主要是调 CBSA 的记录。
但坦白说，调出来的内容并没有让我们真正看懂 file 到底发生了什么。很多时候几次调档之间看不出明显区别，也看不出来到底是谁在处理、处理到了哪一步、为什么还没有结果。
有时候记录里可能会 note 一些外部事件，比如你提交了 mandamus，或者有某些 follow-up，但这不等于能看到实质性进展。
所以调档可以做，也可能有一些帮助，但不要期待它能完整解释 case。尤其是 security screening 相关内容，很多信息可能不会显示，或者即使显示了也很难理解。
我们也联系了 MP office，希望他们可以帮忙问一下状态。MP office 可以通过自己的渠道 inquiry，但他们不能让申请直接获批，也不能真正干预 security screening。我们从这个渠道得到的信息也比较有限。
同时，因为这是 academic move，我们也一直和学校沟通。
我们原本计划是 2025 年 7 月入职。所以 work permit delay 影响的不只是“什么时候搬家”，还包括 start date、appointment、合同、relocation、funding、学生、teaching、lab setup 等等。
一开始学校可能也没有觉得这个事情会拖这么久。后来随着 delay 越来越长，大家也慢慢意识到，这不是一个普通行政 delay。学校可以帮忙调整安排、写 support letter、理解 timeline，但如果涉及 security screening / national security，学校本身也没有办法真正介入。
我后来在和学校沟通合同延期、start date 调整、relocation 以及各种相关安排上花了很多工夫。所以如果发现 work permit 开始明显 delay，我觉得最好尽早和学校保持沟通，不要等到最后一刻才说。
因为申请长时间没有实质进展，我们后来联系了中介，并开始考虑 mandamus。
第一波 mandamus 大概在 2025 年 4 月 就开始交了。现在回头看，这个时间点可能有点早，但当时的情况是：官网 processing time 已经明显异常，application 没有任何有用的 update，我们也不知道还能做什么。
第一次 file 的时候，我和我先生是一起 file 的。因为我们两个人的情况几乎完全一样：同一时间申请，同样长时间没有进展，也都卡在 security screening 相关流程里。但后来 IRCC 的一个反驳点是，他们认为这是两个 separate applications，不能简单地作为一个合并的情况处理。
在第一波 mandamus 期间，我们还 file 过一个 motion，希望能够加快处理。原因是我们当时都都拿到了 NSERC Discovery Grant，而这个 grant 和我们能否按时入职有关；如果不能按时入职，就会影响当年的 grant。这个 motion 处理得相对快，大概一个月左右法官就做出了决定，但最后被 demissed。大意是，虽然这个 delay 对工作和 grant 有影响，但并不是 life-threatening situation，所以不足以支持这种紧急处理。
这件事对我来说也是一个比较现实的提醒：academic harm 对我们来说当然很重要，比如 start date、grant、students、funding，但在法律程序里，它不一定会被看作足够紧急。这个具体要怎么判断当然要问律师，但至少不要自动假设“会影响 grant”就一定可以让 case 被加急。
第一波 mandamus 大概在 2025 年 7 月 左右被判，但我们直到 2025 年 10 月 左右才收到正式通知，结果是被 dismiss。
收到 dismiss 之后，我们又开始准备第二波 mandamus。这一次就根据前一次的经验，分别 file。第二波大概从 2025 年 11 月 开始准备 / 提交，2025 年 12 月 有 reply memo。之后我们一直没有再收到关于第二波 mandamus 的进一步消息。
这里我不提供法律建议，因为每个 case 的情况、时间点、证据、律师判断都不一样。但我们自己的经验是，如果是一家人同时申请、同时 delay，即使事实背景看起来非常相似，法律程序里也可能会被当作 separate applications 来处理。这个点最好一开始就和律师确认清楚。
不管最后是否走 mandamus，一个清楚的 timeline 都非常重要。你需要能说清楚什么时候申请、当时 processing time 是多少、什么时候超过 processing time、发过哪些 webform、调过哪些档、联系过哪些机构、delay 对工作和生活造成了什么具体影响。
在 2025 年 5 月或 6 月左右，我们通过 NSIRA 相关渠道对 CSIS 进行了投诉 / follow up。
这件事后来比较关键。之后 CSIS 那边似乎一直有在跟进。到了 2025 年 10 月左右，我们终于知道，其实 CSIS 的安调部分早在 2025 年 3 月底 就已经完成了。
这件事对我们来说非常重要，也非常困惑。因为这说明，application 继续 pending 并不是因为 CSIS 还没有完成。后面似乎一直卡在 CBSA / IRCC / agency communication 相关的流程里。
所以这里有一个我之前并不知道的点：CSIS 完成不等于整个 security screening 或 work permit application 完成。后面可能还有 CBSA、IRCC、agency communication，或者其他申请人完全看不到的流程。
在我们知道问题很可能卡在 CBSA 相关环节之后，从 2025 年 11 月 开始，我开始给 CBSA 的负责人写邮件。
基本上是每周写一次，一直写到 2025 年 12 月中旬，大概写了十封左右。
最后我们在 2025 年 12 月底或 2026 年 1 月初 收到了回复。但这个回复实际帮助有限。大意是，CBSA 不能透露 security screening 的具体信息，只能说事情仍然在 progress；如果我们想问 application decision，就应该问 IRCC。
问题是，如果问 IRCC，IRCC 又会说申请还在 security screening，没有进一步信息。
所以从申请人的角度看，会有一种责任循环：CBSA 说他们只负责调查，decision 要问 IRCC；IRCC 说 file 在 security screening，具体情况无法提供；学校也因为涉及 national security，没有办法真正干预。
这不是说某一个机构故意不负责，而是整个流程本身对申请人来说非常不透明。你很难知道 file 到底在哪里，也很难知道应该问谁。
到了 2025 年 12 月左右，我们听说有一个类似情况的人拿到了 permit。对方提到之前做过的一件事是让学校写 support letter，然后提交给 IRCC。
所以我们也让学校写了 support letter，并提交给 IRCC。
我们不知道这封信到底有没有起作用。也许有，也许只是时间刚好。但在没有更明确渠道的情况下，这是一个可以尝试的事情。
如果是 academic case，我觉得 support letter 最好写得具体一点，例如说明：
语气保持 factual 和 supportive 就好，不需要写得很 dramatic。
最后，我们在 2026 年 3 月 24 日 收到了 work permit approval。
从 2024 年 11 月 19 日 到 2026 年 3 月 24 日，整个过程大概 16 个月。
中间我们做过的事情包括：
这个我觉得非常重要。建议从申请第一天开始就记录：
申请提交日期、当时官网 processing time、每次 webform 的日期和内容、每次 IRCC 回复、每次调档日期、每次 MP inquiry、每次和学校 / 律师 / 中介的沟通、每次拿到的新信息，以及 delay 对 start date、funding、students、relocation 的影响。
一开始可能会觉得没必要，但到后面你会发现，不管是和学校解释情况、和律师沟通，还是准备 mandamus，一个清楚的 timeline 都非常有用。
我们发了很多 IRCC webform。大多数都没有实质信息。
但如果中介 / 律师建议持续 follow up，我觉得还是应该坚持。它不一定能推动 file，但至少可以留下一个记录，说明你一直在 actively seeking updates，也在持续说明 delay 对你的实际影响。
我们主要调 CBSA 的档。调档可以给你一些碎片，但不要期待它清楚告诉你“卡在哪里”。
尤其是 security screening 相关内容，很多信息不会显示，或者显示出来也很难理解。不同时间调出来的档可能看起来没有什么区别。
这是我们后来才学到的。
我们到 2025 年 10 月才知道 CSIS 早在 2025 年 3 月底已经完成。但 work permit 直到 2026 年 3 月 24 日才批。
所以如果你知道 CSIS 完成了，也不要自动认为申请马上会批。后面可能还有 CBSA、IRCC 或 agency communication 的问题。
如果是 academic move，work permit delay 影响的不只是个人搬家，还会影响 start date、合同、relocation、salary、grant、students、teaching、lab setup 等很多事情。
我自己后来在和学校沟通合同延期、start date 调整、relocation 和相关安排时，花了很多工夫。所以如果发现申请开始明显 delay，最好尽早让学校知道，并且持续给 factual updates。
但也要现实一点：学校可以帮你调整安排、写 support letter、帮你想 administrative workaround，但如果是 security screening / national security 相关的东西，学校通常没有办法真正干预 immigration process 本身。
如果 work permit delay 影响入职时间，学生和 funding 的安排会需要额外协调。
我们的情况是，原计划是 2025 年 7 月入职，所以 2024 年底已经有一些 grant / NSERC 相关安排，也开始招学生。有学生在 2025 年 fall 开始。后来因为我还没有正式入职加拿大，部分经费和正式安排没有按原计划到位，学生第一年需要通过 TA 等方式先支持起来。
这件事最后是可以安排的，尤其很多学生第一年本来也会有 coursework、TA、适应项目和方向探索。但如果能更早和 department / graduate program / funding office 沟通 backup support，会少很多临时协调的压力。
所以如果 work permit 已经明显 delay，建议尽早问清楚几件事：学生第一年的 support 能不能通过 TA 或 department funding 临时解决；grant 或 fellowship 的开始时间能不能顺延；正式 supervision / co-supervision 在行政上怎么处理；以及如果 PI 延迟入职，学生在第一学期遇到问题时应该找谁。
这不是说 delay 一定会影响学生的学业，而是 academic move 里的 student support 和 funding flow 本来就有很多行政依赖。提前把这些依赖关系理清楚，会让学生和 PI 都更安心。
如果有 grant、fellowship、NSERC 或其他 funding 和你的 start date 绑定，也要尽早联系相关人员说明情况。
我们这边也很感谢 NSERC 相关人员理解我们的情况，并且帮助我们把 grant timeline 往后调整了一点。这种事情如果不主动沟通，可能会变得更麻烦。
所以一旦 work permit delay 可能影响入职，不只是要和 department 沟通，也要尽早梳理哪些 funding / grant / student support 会被 start date 影响，然后分别问清楚能不能延期、能不能调整、需要什么文件。
不是所有人都会遇到安调。我们身边也有认识的人完全没有 security screening，很顺利地拿到了 work permit。所以这不是一个“加拿大 faculty 都会遇到”的问题。
但它确实是一个可能发生、而且一旦发生就很难预测时间线的风险。我们到现在也不知道为什么会经历安调。
所以如果以后有 international candidate 在加拿大高校面试，尤其是已经知道自己 immigration timeline 可能比较复杂，我觉得可以比较早地和学校讨论 backup plan。比如：
如果 work permit delay，start date 能不能调整？ appointment letter 和合同怎么处理？ relocation support 怎么办？ 学生第一年的 support 有没有 backup？ teaching assignment 是否需要 contingency plan？ grant / fellowship timeline 能不能调整？
这些问题不需要一开始就讲得很吓人，但学校最好知道这是一个可能性。
我们第一波 mandamus 大概 2025 年 4 月就开始了，后来被 dismiss，然后又准备第二波。
我不适合给 mandamus 的一般建议，因为每个 case 的事实、时间点、证据和律师判断都不一样。但不管最后是否走这一步，前面说的 timeline 都很重要。
你需要能很清楚地说：什么时候申请、当时 processing time 是多少、什么时候超过 processing time、做过哪些 follow-up、拿到过哪些 notes、delay 对 employment / relocation / students / funding 有什么具体影响。
我们从 2024 年 11 月 19 日 提交申请，到 2026 年 3 月 24 日 获批，中间大概 16 个月。
这个过程里最困难的部分，不是某一个具体表格，而是信息不透明和责任循环：IRCC 说 file 在 security screening，CBSA 说 decision 要问 IRCC，学校因为涉及 national security 也不能真正介入。申请人能做的事情很多，但每一件的效果都不确定。
我写这些不是为了说每个人都会遇到这种情况。事实上，我们身边也有人很顺利地拿到了加拿大 work permit，完全没有经历类似的 security screening delay。
但如果真的遇到了，它会影响 academic move 里的很多事情：start date、合同、relocation、students、funding、teaching、lab setup。希望这个时间线和经验记录，能对之后遇到类似情况的人有一点帮助。
I wanted to write down our Canadian work permit timeline because I found that, in academia, people often do go through long immigration delays, security screening, access-to-information requests, MP inquiries, university support letters, and sometimes even mandamus proceedings — but publicly, the story is often summarized as “it took a long time, and eventually it was approved.”
That is understandable, but it also means that when you are actually in the middle of the process, it is hard to know what people did, what channels they tried, and what information was or was not useful.
This is not legal advice, and it may not apply to everyone’s case. This is just a record of what happened in our case and what we tried along the way.
We submitted our Canadian work permit applications on November 19, 2024.
The applications were approved on March 24, 2026.
So the total processing time was about 16 months.
At the beginning, we did not expect the process to take this long. The processing time shown on the IRCC website was around 16 weeks, so our expectation was roughly: maybe it would be slow, but perhaps there would be a result after about 16 weeks.
We waited the 16 weeks.
After that, when we checked the processing time again, it had changed to something around 80 weeks. That was when we started to realize this was probably not a normal delay.
Over time, we realized that the application was likely in security screening / security clearance.
This process is very opaque from the applicant’s side. What you see is basically that the application has no decision, and webform replies say that it is still in process. But you do not really know where the file is, whether it is with IRCC, CBSA, CSIS, or somewhere between agencies.
For a long time, it felt like the file had just disappeared into a black box. There was no specific document request to respond to, and no obvious action we could take to “fix” the problem. The file was just somewhere in a process we could not see.
Throughout the process, we continued sending IRCC webforms.
Whenever there was a new development, or no update for a long time, or when we needed to explain the impact of the delay, we submitted another webform. Most replies were quite generic: the application was still in process, there was no further information, etc.
Still, we kept doing it. Our representative / lawyer advised us to keep following up. Even if a webform does not directly move the file, it creates a record that we were actively seeking updates and explaining the impact of the delay.
My takeaway is: webforms may not give you useful information, but it is still worth keeping a record of them.
We also requested records, mainly from CBSA.
To be honest, the records did not make it easy to understand what was actually happening. Often, there was no obvious difference between different sets of notes. It was hard to tell who had the file, what stage it was at, or why it was still pending.
Sometimes the records would note external events, such as the fact that a mandamus application had been filed. But that did not necessarily tell us whether there was substantive progress.
So, yes, records requests can be useful, and they can provide pieces of the timeline. But at least in our case, they did not provide a clear workflow or a clear explanation of where exactly the file was stuck.
We also contacted an MP’s office to ask whether they could inquire about the status. They were able to make an inquiry, but they could not make the application approved or intervene in security screening. The information we received through that channel was also limited.
At the same time, because this was an academic move, we kept the university updated.
Our original plan was to start in July 2025. The work permit delay therefore affected not just when we could move, but also the start date, appointment, contract, relocation, funding, students, teaching, and lab setup.
At the beginning, I think the university also did not expect the delay to become this long. As time passed, it became clearer that this was not just a normal administrative delay. The university could help adjust arrangements, write support letters, and think through administrative options, but when the issue is security screening / national security, there is very little the university can directly do to intervene.
I spent a lot of time communicating with the university about contract extension, start-date changes, relocation, and related arrangements. In hindsight, if the application is already clearly delayed, it is better to keep the university informed early rather than waiting until the last moment.
Because the applications had no substantive progress for a long time, we contacted our representative / lawyer and started considering mandamus.
The first mandamus application was filed around April 2025. Looking back, this may have been early, but at the time the processing time had become abnormal, there was no useful update, and we did not know what else we could do.
The first time, my husband and I filed together. We were in almost exactly the same situation: we applied at the same time, both applications had been pending for a long time, and both appeared to be stuck in the security-screening-related process. However, one of IRCC’s arguments was that these were separate applications and should not simply be treated as one combined case.
During the first mandamus process, we also filed a motion to try to expedite the matter. The reason was that I had received an NSERC Discovery Grant, and the grant was tied to whether I could start my position on time. If I could not start on time, it would affect the grant for that year. The motion moved relatively quickly — the judge made a decision in about a month — but it was denied. The reason, as I understood it, was that although the delay affected employment and grant funding, it was not a life-threatening situation and therefore did not justify that kind of urgent treatment.
This was a useful reality check for me. Academic harm can be very serious from our perspective: start date, grant funding, students, lab setup, and so on. But in the legal process, that may not automatically be considered urgent enough. Of course, how to frame this is something to discuss with a lawyer, but I would not assume that “this affects a grant” necessarily means the case can be expedited.
The first mandamus application was decided around July 2025, but we did not receive the formal notice until around October 2025. It was dismissed.
After that, we started preparing a second round of mandamus applications. This time, based on what happened in the first round, we filed separately. The second round started around November 2025, and there was a reply memo in December 2025. We have not heard anything further about that round since then.
I am not giving legal advice here. Every case is different, and the timing, evidence, and legal strategy matter. But from our experience, even if family members apply at the same time and are delayed in essentially the same way, the applications may still be treated as separate applications in the legal process. This is something worth clarifying with a lawyer early.
Regardless of whether one eventually pursues mandamus, it is important to have a very clear timeline: when the application was submitted, what the processing time was, when it exceeded the posted processing time, what webforms were submitted, what records were requested, which offices were contacted, and what concrete impact the delay had.
Around May or June 2025, we filed a complaint / follow-up related to CSIS through NSIRA.
This turned out to be one of the more useful steps. After that, CSIS seemed to follow up on the matter. Around October 2025, we finally learned that the CSIS portion of the security screening had actually been completed back in late March 2025.
This was important, but also confusing. It meant that the continued delay was not because CSIS had not completed its part. The file appeared to be stuck later in the CBSA / IRCC / inter-agency communication part of the process.
One thing I did not understand before this process is that CSIS completing its part does not necessarily mean that the whole security screening or work permit application is complete. There may still be CBSA steps, IRCC steps, inter-agency communication, or other internal processes that the applicant cannot see.
After we learned that the file was likely stuck around the CBSA-related part of the process, I started writing to the CBSA contact / officer in charge around November 2025.
I wrote roughly once a week, until around mid-December 2025 — probably about ten emails in total.
Eventually, around late December 2025 or early January 2026, we received a response. But the response itself was not very useful. The basic message was that CBSA could not disclose details of security screening, that the matter was still in progress, and that questions about the application decision should be directed to IRCC.
The problem is that when we asked IRCC, IRCC would say that the application was in security screening and that they had no further information.
So from the applicant’s perspective, it felt like a loop: CBSA says they only conduct the investigation and IRCC makes the decision; IRCC says the file is in security screening; the university cannot intervene because it relates to national security.
I am not saying any specific agency was acting in bad faith. The point is that the process is extremely opaque from the outside, and it is very hard to know who can actually provide useful information.
Around December 2025, we heard of someone in a somewhat similar situation whose permit had been approved, and one thing they had done was to ask the university to write a support letter to IRCC.
So we also asked the university to write a support letter and submitted it to IRCC.
We do not know whether the letter made any difference. It may have helped, or it may simply have been timing. But in an academic case, it seems like a reasonable thing to try.
For this kind of support letter, I think it is useful to be specific: the position, expected start date, how the delay affects the appointment / employment, and how it affects research, students, funding, teaching, or relocation. The tone should probably be factual and supportive, not dramatic.
Finally, on March 24, 2026, our work permits were approved.
From November 19, 2024 to March 24, 2026, the process took about 16 months.
During that time, we:
This is probably the most important practical point.
From the first day, keep track of the application date, the posted processing time at the time of application, every webform, every IRCC response, every records request, every MP inquiry, every communication with the university / lawyer / representative, every new piece of information, and how the delay affects start date, funding, students, and relocation.
At the beginning, this may feel unnecessary. Later, it becomes very useful for university communication, lawyer communication, mandamus preparation, and your own understanding of the case.
We submitted many IRCC webforms. Most did not provide substantive information.
But if your representative / lawyer advises you to keep following up, it is still worth doing. It creates a record that you were actively seeking updates and explaining the impact of the delay.
We mainly requested CBSA records. They provided some fragments, but they did not clearly explain where the file was stuck.
This may be especially true for security screening. Some information may not be visible, and some visible information may be hard to interpret.
We only learned around October 2025 that CSIS had completed its part in late March 2025. But the work permits were not approved until March 24, 2026.
So even if you learn that CSIS has completed its portion, that does not necessarily mean the application will be approved soon. There may still be CBSA, IRCC, or inter-agency communication steps.
For an academic move, a work permit delay affects more than personal relocation. It can affect start date, contract, relocation, salary, grants, students, teaching, and lab setup.
I spent a lot of time communicating with the university about contract extension, start-date changes, relocation, and related arrangements. If the application is clearly delayed, it is better to keep the university updated early and provide factual updates as the situation changes.
At the same time, it is important to be realistic. The university can help adjust administrative arrangements, write a support letter, and think through workarounds. But if the issue is security screening / national security, the university usually cannot directly intervene in the immigration process.
If the delay affects the faculty start date, student and funding arrangements may need extra coordination.
In our case, the original plan was to start in July 2025. By late 2024, we already had some grant / NSERC-related arrangements and had recruited students. Some students started in Fall 2025. Because I had not formally started in Canada yet, some funding and administrative arrangements could not happen exactly as planned, and students needed to be supported through TAships and other arrangements in the first year.
This was manageable, especially because many first-year students also have coursework, TA responsibilities, and time to explore directions. But it would reduce stress to discuss backup support earlier with the department, graduate program, and funding office.
If a work permit is already clearly delayed, it is worth asking: can the student be supported through TA or department funding temporarily? Can a grant or fellowship start date be shifted? How does formal supervision / co-supervision work administratively? If the PI’s start date is delayed, who should the student contact in the first semester if issues come up?
The point is not that the delay necessarily harms the student’s academic progress. The point is that student support and funding flow in an academic move have many administrative dependencies, and it helps to clarify them early.
If a grant, fellowship, NSERC award, or other funding source is tied to your start date, contact the relevant people early.
In our case, I am grateful that the NSERC-related staff understood the situation and helped adjust the grant timeline. These things are much easier to handle if you communicate early and ask what documents or updates they need.
Not everyone goes through security screening. We know people who received their Canadian work permits smoothly and did not experience anything like this. So this is not something that happens to every international faculty hire.
But it is a real possibility, and if it happens, the timeline can be hard to predict. We still do not know why our case went through this process.
For international candidates interviewing with Canadian universities, especially if their immigration timeline may be complicated, it may be worth discussing backup plans early: whether the start date can be adjusted, how appointment letters and contracts would be handled, what happens to relocation support, whether first-year student support has a backup, whether teaching needs a contingency plan, and whether grant / fellowship timelines can be shifted.
This does not need to be presented in a scary way. But the school should at least understand that this is a possibility.
Our first mandamus application started around April 2025, was later dismissed, and then we prepared a second one.
I cannot give general advice on mandamus. It depends on the facts, timing, evidence, and legal strategy. But regardless of whether one eventually pursues it, the timeline is important.
You need to be able to clearly explain when you applied, what the posted processing time was, when the application exceeded that time, what follow-ups you made, what notes you received, and what impact the delay had on employment, relocation, students, and funding.
From November 19, 2024 to March 24, 2026, our work permit application took about 16 months.
The hardest part was not one particular form or document. It was the opacity of the process and the loop between different channels: IRCC says the file is in security screening; CBSA says the decision belongs to IRCC; the university cannot really intervene because the issue relates to national security. As an applicant, there are many things you can do, but it is hard to know which, if any, will actually make a difference.
I am not writing this to suggest that everyone will experience this. Many people get their Canadian work permits without a similar delay.
But if it does happen, it can affect many parts of an academic move: start date, contract, relocation, students, funding, teaching, and lab setup. I hope this timeline and these notes are useful to others who may encounter a similar situation.