Every applicant stuck in security screening asks the same question: what share of files actually fail?
Until now there was no published answer. IRCC records released under the Access to Information Act provide one.
The short version: about one percent.
The numbers
IRCC reports “Non-Favourable” results, and the document states plainly that non-favourable means failed.
Totals for January 2019 through July 2025:
- Permanent residence: 990
- Temporary residence: 2,680
- Combined: 3,670
Against 297,080 referrals.
Overall non-favourable rate: 1.24%.
Put differently, of every 100 applications sent to security screening, roughly 99 clear it.
Year by year
- 2019: 1.45% (995 results)
- 2020: 1.77% (330)
- 2021: 2.41% (560)
- 2022: 2.09% (715)
- 2023: 1.13% (695)
- 2024: 0.47% (300)
- 2025 (to July): 0.27% (75)
An important caveat on 2024 and 2025
At first glance the failure rate appears to be collapsing. That reading should be treated cautiously.
A large share of files referred in 2024, and most referred in 2025, have not yet reached a result. Security screening runs for months and sometimes years. Non-favourable counts for recent years are therefore low by construction — not necessarily because fewer applicants fail, but because fewer have been decided.
The 2019–2022 figures, which have had time to mature, are the more reliable guide. Across those years the rate ranged between 1.45% and 2.41%.
The conservative conclusion: the true failure rate in security screening sits somewhere around one to two percent.
The rate is not uniform
Two contrasting cases:
- Afghanistan: roughly 215 non-favourable results against 6,865 PR referrals — close to 3%
- Iran: roughly 130 non-favourable results against 47,635 referrals across both streams — about 0.27%
Afghan applicants fail at more than ten times the Iranian rate, while Iran generates several times the referral volume.
That contrast makes an important point: a high referral rate is not evidence of high risk. Referral reflects screening criteria. The result reflects what was actually found.
What it means for an applicant
- The odds of clearing are very high. More than 98% of files pass this stage.
- The real cost is time, not outcome. For most applicants the genuine risk is expiring documents, lapsed language test results, changed employment circumstances, and opportunities lost while waiting.
- A long wait should not be read as a likely refusal. In this data the two have no direct relationship.
- For unreasonable delay, litigation is a real option. Mandamus compels a decision; it does not dictate what the decision must be.
Source
Figures from IRCC records released under the Access to Information Act, pages 000127–000146, compiled by OPP-DART-2025-34337. Values between 0 and 5 are shown as “–” and all other values rounded to the nearest multiple of 5, so approximate figures are approximate for that reason. Percentage rates are our calculation from the published counts.
Related reading
- Iran leads the world in Canada’s security screening referrals
- What Canadian security screening actually is
- Mandamus: when the burden shifts to the government
