Sharp rise in Americans applying for refugee status in Canada, data shows

2025/08/25 Leave a comment

Header misleading. An increase yes of about 20 percent but still small numbers, only about .05 percent:

More Americans applied for refugee status in Canada in the first half of 2025 than in all of 2024, and more than in any full year since 2019, according to data published on Thursday by Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board.

Their share of total refugee claims – 245 of about 55,000 – is small and Canada’s acceptance of U.S. refugee claims has historically been low. Asylum-seekers from other countries crossing the land border from the U.S. are sent back under a bilateral agreement with the reasoning that they should apply for asylum in the first “safe” country they arrived in.

Last year 204 people filed refugee claims in Canada with the United States as their country of alleged persecution. Claims from the U.S. also rose during the first Trump administration.
The data does not say why the claims were made. Eight lawyers told Reuters they are hearing from more trans Americans wanting to leave. Reuters spoke with a trans woman from Arizona who came to Canada in April to file a claim, and to a woman who came to file a claim on behalf of her young trans daughter…

Source: Sharp rise in Americans applying for refugee status in Canada, data shows

Filed under Refugees Tagged with ,

Border bill would leave dissidents who visited Canada in the past at risk: experts

2025/08/20 Leave a comment

Valid concern but how to have an exception from the general rule with a definition and process that separates significant dissidents from some who make claim but have less legitimate fears:

Dissidents, human-rights activists and journalists being persecuted by foreign regimes could find themselves unable to get asylum hearings in Canada under planned immigration changes, refugee experts warn. 

They are calling on the federal government to create an exception in Bill C-2, the Strong Borders bill, so dissidents can find safe haven here. 

As it is currently worded, the bill would exclude dissidents and others from hearings at the Immigration and Refugee Board if they came to Canada more than a year before their claim.

Many – including political opponents of authoritarian regimes – may have visited Canada to attend meetings, speak at summits or give lectures, the experts warn. 

Bill C-2, which is going through its parliamentary stages, aims to tighten up immigration rules and is likely to cut the total number of asylum claims. It would put people who have been in Canada for more than a year on a fast track to deportation. 

The bill specifies that the one-year period “begins on the day after the day of their first entry.” 

Lawyers said a “first entry” would include any previous visit to Canada, including a holiday here. 

“Unlike the U.S. approach, where the one-year rule generally applies based on the most recent entry and includes exceptions, the Canadian version is broader and more rigid,” immigration lawyer Warda Shazadi Meighen of Toronto law firm Landings LLP said in an e-mail.

“This has troubling implications. It would apply to individuals who came to Canada years ago for reasons entirely unrelated to their current need for protection – as children on holiday, students, guest speakers or attendees at international conferences. 

“These are often the same people – foreign dissidents, human rights advocates, journalists and LGBTQ+ individuals – who later flee genuine and escalating persecution from authoritarian regimes. Their prior, often innocent, engagement with Canada could now preclude them from seeking asylum here.”

Ms. Shazadi Meighen urged the government to create “a clear carve-out for dissidents and others fleeing political violence or state persecution, or at minimum a discretionary mechanism with procedural safeguards for those who fall outside the one-year window due to past presence but now face genuine risk.” 

Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, called the one-year bar being proposed in Bill C-2 “a dangerous step that actually undermines safety for many in Canada.”

“For example, those that travelled to Canada as children, or someone that came to Canada previously as a renowned journalist, academic or human-rights defender to share their expertise and is later under threat in their country for this very reason could be arbitrarily denied access to safety due to their earlier visit; it defies logic,” she said. “There should be no time limit on the right to seek protection in or at our borders.”

Fen Osler Hampson, president of the World Refugee and Migration Council, said the wording of the bill’s clauses on asylum could have far-reaching, unintended consequences.

“In legislative drafting, every word and comma counts and the government should scrutinize every word, sentence and paragraph in new legislation carefully, not just in terms of their intended consequence and professed objectives, but also their potentially unintended consequences, which, in this particular instance, are profound and unintentionally discriminatory,” Mr. Osler Hampson, who is also professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said in an e-mail. 

Source: Border bill would leave dissidents who visited Canada in the past at risk: experts

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , , , ,

How do Canadian officials detect plagiarized refugee claims?

2025/08/08 Leave a comment

Reasonable use of AI IMO:

A failed refugee claimant came to Amandeep Singh in May for help after he was refused because his claim was “nearly word for word” identical to others before the refugee board.

While the Edmonton-based immigration consultant had heard for a long time that some claimants and their counsel have plagiarized claims to game the system, what struck him was what tool the refugee board and immigration officials use to flag these cases, which he says seems to have happened more often.

“I wouldn’t say this (plagiarism) is something new,” said Singh, who did not take on that client because he didn’t believe the man had a case. “It shows to me that officials are actually using artificial intelligence, so it is easier for them to look at multiple cases at the same time to see if the information in a claim matches with other asylum applications.”

While the refugee board denies the use of AI in its claim processing, the Immigration Department and the border agency — bodies that determine if a foreign national is eligible to seek asylum in Canada and which can intervene in refugee hearings — are less clear on how they identify these cases. Generally, officials deem similar claims as a potential indicator of fraud.

In the case that Singh reviewed with personal information redacted, the refugee board adjudicator drew comparisons between the man’s claim and five others.

“I am a follower of the Sikh religion, and my family and I are devout Sikhs … 1became (sic) the member of Khalistan movement (aiming for a peaceful creation of an independent state for Sikh people),” according to the refugee refusal decision, which set out a side-by-side table highlighting each similar paragraph in those claims. The parentheses are from the claim, which includes grammatical errors, as cited in the decision.

“The primary objective for joining movement was to establish a new nation for the Sikh community, providing them the freedom to practice their religious activities and ensuring equal rights for all.”

Apart from the different date noting when the claimant joined the movement, the whole paragraph, including the typo “1,” was the same as the narrative cited by the refugee protection tribunal. The claims also referred to visits by Indian authorities to the family homes to look for the claimant and for alleged links to Pakistan.

The person told the tribunal that he did not know why others’ narratives were similar to his word for word, but did explain that what happened to him could have happened to all Sikhs given the circumstances. The refugee judge, however, concluded that’s not reasonable.

Sean Rehaag, director of Refugee Law Laboratory at Osgoode Hall Law School, said there are anti-plagiarism tools that universities have used for a long time to find similar bits of text, as well as ways for the refugee board to identify similar claims without using high-tech.

For instance, said Rehaag, a decision-maker may encounter two or more similar claims, and refer to the board administration to look into it further, examining other files from the same country by the same representative. Or decision-makers may talk with one another about a particular type of case, or someone triaging cases discovers a pattern and flags it internally.

Rehaag said the information could also come from immigration and border agency officials, who he said probably have program integrity tools that would allow them to identify suspicious patterns. In those circumstances, he said, officials would then intervene in the refugee proceedings based on integrity concerns.

The Immigration and Refugee Board told the Star that it does not use artificial intelligence at any stage of processing or deciding claims.

“While claims from the same country or region may share common elements, credibility or integrity issues could be raised if review of the files identified substantially similar claimants’ narratives about the specific circumstances of their claim,” the board said in an email.

Where similarities are identified in the process, it said claimants are required to provide an explanation. If the claimant is found to have provided false or misleading evidence, it could lead to a rejection….

Source: How do Canadian officials detect plagiarized refugee claims?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

Doug Ford and other premiers want provincial work permits for refugee claimants. It may not solve anything

2025/07/28 Leave a comment

Nothing burger given quick processing of 45 days?

With refugee claimants now getting work permits fairly quickly and housing being less of a pain point, why do Canada’s premiers want to seize power from Ottawa to issue work permits?

This week, the provincial leaders emerged from the premiers’ meeting united in seeking the powers under the Constitution to issue work authorization to asylum seekers, which is currently under the federal government’s jurisdiction.

The reason behind the move, Premier Doug Ford said Wednesday, is that a lot of asylum seekers living in hotels would like to work and be self-sufficient, but can’t because it’s taking too long for Ottawa to process their work permits.

While any initiative that would help claimants to get on their feet and start working as quickly as possible is positive, Toronto refugee lawyer Adam Sadinsky isn’t sure if that push is based on “outdated information.” (The Immigration Department’s website shows work permit application processing for non-refugees currently takes 181 days.)

“It was an issue a couple of years ago,” said Sadinsky, whose clients in Canada generally now receive their work permits in about six weeks. “In my practice, I haven’t seen that it is really a significant issue anymore.”

Section 95 of the Constitution Act outlines the concurrent jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures including immigration, education and health care. It states that both levels of government can make laws in these areas, but in a conflict, federal laws prevail. 

In fact, the two levels of governments have already shared jurisdiction in some areas of immigration. The provincial nominee immigration programs, for example, allow provinces to select prospective permanent residents for Ottawa’s stamp of approval.

Currently, the only provincial-based work permits are those related to the provincial nominee program, where the province can approve the work authorization of a selected candidate, who will ultimately get the permit from the federal government.

“The provinces and the feds have worked together,” said Toronto immigration lawyer Rick Lamanna on behalf of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association. 

But could it be just a bluff from the premiers?

“We’ll know more if or when you start to see things coming out, whether it’s from Ontario or Alberta or other provinces, putting more meat on those bones,” Lamanna said. 

“When you start to see logistical plans, if they start opening up stakeholder consultations, if they make announcements like expansion of Service Ontario to facilitate the issuance of these permits, I think that’s when we’ll know.” 

In a statement to the Star, the Immigration Department said claimants must submit a completed application, including a medical exam, and are determined to be eligible to seek protection before they are issued a work permit. On average, it now takes 45 days to process.

Officials have also found more sustainable and cost-effective solutions such as the new refugee reception centre in Peel to house and support asylum seekers….

Source: Doug Ford and other premiers want provincial work permits for refugee claimants. It may not solve anything

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , ,

ICYMI – Chris Selley: Canada’s refugee system — and the world’s — is overdue for an overhaul

2025/07/22 Leave a comment

About 70 percent of refugees already live close to their country of origin but makes sense for Canada to support seeking refuge in neighbouring countries:

…The simple fact is, Canada is not equipped to handle as many refugee claims as we currently accept. If we were, there wouldn’t be African migrants sleeping on Toronto sidewalks. There wouldn’t have been 281,000 pending asylum cases as of March 31.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government is certainly aware of the issue. Bill C-2 proposes a one-year deadline after arriving in Canada for claiming asylum — so people with expired or revoked visas couldn’t apply, for example — and to eliminate a loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement that allows illegal border-crossers who evade capture for two weeks to apply for asylum nevertheless.

Both are entirely reasonable. But the current issue of The Economist, cover headline “Scrap the refugee system,” suggests the sort of wholesale changes to the global refugee system that I have been arguing for forever. It’s interesting not so much as a piece of journalism as it is to know that liberal (and Liberal) policymakers very much tend to read The Economist.

“About 123 million people have been displaced by conflict, disaster or persecution. … All these people have a right to seek safety,” the magazine’s editorial observes. “But ‘safety’ does not mean access to a rich country’s labour market. Indeed, resettlement in rich countries will never be more than a tiny part of the solution.”

The goal, the august organ argues, should be for refugees to receive asylum closer to home — ideally in culturally and linguistically similar countries whose population will tend to be more sympathetic. For the money that rich countries spend processing everyone who manages to make it to their shores — who are generally by definition not the world’s most imperilled or downtrodden, else they wouldn’t be able to get here — they could help vastly more people to safety, even if not First World prosperity. (The latter was never the goal of the current system.)

This is an idea that would require multilateral co-operation to achieve full bloom, of course. But many First World countries are far more hostile to asylum-seekers, if not immigrants in general, than Canada is. If Canada significantly restricted refugee claims made on Canadian soil, and instead refocused its efforts on helping people find refuge closer to home, it would set a useful example — not least because we have been so welcoming, to a fault, in the past.

Source: Chris Selley: Canada’s refugee system — and the world’s — is overdue for an overhaul

Filed under Refugees Tagged with

Border bill would create ‘in limbo’ foreign residents, refugee groups say 

2025/07/12 Leave a comment

Usual critique by advocates, with no analysis of numbers likely to be affected or recognition of previous abuses:

A federal crackdown on asylum claims would create a new “in limbo” class of foreign residents who couldn’t be returned home but who would be barred from asylum hearings and unable to work in Canada, refugee groups say.

They are warning government officials that the Strong Borders Act, which was introduced before MPs went on summer break, would lead to people living without status in Canada if their home countries are deemed too dangerous for them to be returned to.

The legislation, also known as Bill C-2, would tighten up Canada’s immigration and asylum system, barring people who arrived in Canada more than a year ago from having an asylum claim heard by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. Applicants to the IRB can qualify for work permits and health coverage while they wait for assessments. 

The restriction would apply to people who entered the country after June 24, 2020, even if they have since left and returned.

Bill C-2 would also prevent people who crossed the U.S. border illegally from claiming asylum if they have been in Canada for at least 14 days, which is currently permitted under a provision of the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States….

Source: Border bill would create ‘in limbo’ foreign residents, refugee groups say

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

Canada sets record for number of refugee claims

2025/06/13 Leave a comment

Of note:

Canada has moved up one spot to become the fourth largest recipient country of asylum seekers, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.

Last year, Canada received a record 174,000 new refugee claims, of the 3.1 million new claims reported worldwide, said the agency’s 2024 global trends report released on Thursday. Canada was behind the U.S. (729,100), Egypt (433,900), Germany (229,800). In fifth was Spain at 167,400. 

This country was also the second-largest resettlement country globally, welcoming 49,300 refugees in 2024, and led the world in granting permanent residence to 27,400 refugees.

The UN refugee report came after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government last week tabled an omnibus bill, the Strong Border Act, part of it meant to restrict access to asylum as Canada struggles with the ballooning 284,715 claims in the system.

On the eve of the three-day G7 summit that starts in Kananaskis, Alta., on Sunday, the agency’s representative in Canada said this is a unique opportunity to lead peace efforts and rally global support for those forced to flee for safety.

“Canada’s leadership in refugee resettlement and integration shows what’s possible when compassion and commitment come together,” said Tracey Maulfair. “At a time of global uncertainty, this leadership is more important than ever.”…

Source: Canada sets record for number of refugee claims

Filed under Refugees Tagged with

Refugees in limbo as Ottawa silent on immigration jobs program due to expire within days

2025/06/10 Leave a comment

Of note:

…Dana Wagner, co-founder of TalentLift, a non-profit international recruitment company that matches displaced people with employers, said that with no direction from the federal government both employees and refugees are in limbo. Letting the program just expire would be ”counterproductive and cruel,” she said.

“You can’t turn economic visas on and off like a tap without harming Canadian workplaces. Employers put time and resources into international hiring, and that investment is lost if a visa pathway suddenly ends,” she said. 

“People in really tough refugee situations around the world are also investing in their job search with Canadian teams. There’s a number of people waiting on the results of an interview, or working hard to get one, who’d be facing yet another major lost opportunity if Canada ends this program.” …

Source: Refugees in limbo as Ottawa silent on immigration jobs program due to expire within days

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Early tests for Minister Diab:

Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is defending controversial new measures in the Strong Borders Act, such as giving her office the power to cancel immigration documents en masse and placing time limits for asylum seekers to make their applications.

“There’s a lot of applications in the system. We need to act fairly, and treat people appropriately who really do need to claim asylum and who really do need to be protected to stay in Canada,” Diab told CBC News.

“We need to be more efficient in doing that. At the same time, Canadians demand that we have a system that works for everyone.”

Introduced in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, is meant to protect Canadian sovereignty, strengthen the border and keep Canadians safe, according to the federal government.

The bill would make dozens of amendments to existing laws. Its proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would force asylum seekers entering the country, including students and temporary residents, to make claims within a year.

The new law would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.

And it would speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.

Groups such as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers are raising concerns about these measures. 

“There are a few categories of people who may end up making a claim after they’ve been in Canada for more than one year for fully legitimate reasons,” said Adam Sadinsky, the group’s advocacy co-chair. 

He cited examples such as changes in government in someone’s country of origin, the breakout of conflict or their human rights advocacy in Canada placing a target on them. 

“They may now be in danger returning back home in a way that they weren’t when they first arrived,” he said. 

Federal government data shows some 39,445 asylum claimants processed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency between January and April.

Sadinsky said if the government’s motivations are about clearing backlogs, it may be creating another problem. 

Asylum seekers who find their application rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada can file appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division. However, shutting them out of the asylum route after a year could make them turn to the Federal Court of Canada for recourse instead, a body that has been public about its own courtrooms facing severe delays with immigration cases.

“It’s a lot more work for the court,” Sadinsky said, “when people start getting removal dates from Canada and they have to ask the court for motions for stays of removal from Canada.” 

Sadinsky suggested the government could have reduced backlogs by issuing blanket approvals for would-be asylum seekers from countries where Canada recognizes there is an imminent danger to sending them back, such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will ‘keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering,’ as well as ‘enhance the integrity and fairness of our immigration system.’ 

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the government needed to act, though he recognized courts are facing efficiency problems.

“We need to be able to do two things at once,” he said about changing the asylum system and reducing court backlogs.

Reached for comment, the office of the chief justice of the Federal Court said in a statement it would “simply hope that any potential impact on the court’s workload would be taken into account,” citing a previous amendment to immigration law under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2010 that included four new court positions.

Mass cancellation powers

The Migrant Rights Network, an advocacy group, said it is alarmed about the government giving itself the ability to cancel previously issued immigration documents in large groups. 

“What this is, is setting up of a mass deportation machine,” said its spokesperson Syed Hussan. “Just go out and say we’re walking away from the Geneva Convention.” 

Diab said any mass cancellation decisions would be taken by the whole cabinet, not just her office, and they would not be done lightly.

“These are in exceptional circumstances, when you’re talking about mass cancellation or suspension,” she said. 

“For example, when COVID happened, we literally had applications coming in, and the system had no authority to suspend or cancel those applications … we could have health risks again. We could have security risks.” 

Bill C-2 is now moving through Parliament. The legislation would normally be studied by parliamentary committee next, though neither Diab nor Gary Anandasangaree, the public safety minister, could say which committee would pick it up.

Committees have not been named yet for this sitting and it is unclear if they will before Parliament wraps up for the summer at the end of June.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers said it intends to write a letter outlining its concerns to the federal government, and would hope to present at committee when the moment arrives.

Source: Immigration minister defends sweeping new powers in border bill

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , , ,

Urback: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees? 

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Valid question:

…Canada is now trying to make the process a little bit harder. This week, the Liberals tabled an omnibus bill that, among many other things, would render ineligible for asylum those who have been in Canada for more than a year (which addresses the spike in applications from international students who filed refugee claims after the government changed student visa rules in 2024), and would prohibit those who entered Canada via an irregular border crossing to file for refugee protection after 14 days. These are necessary changes that may help to bring Canada’s current four-year-backlog for refugee hearings down to manageable levels. But some people will still try….

But now, those without legal status in the U.S. are being picked up off the streets, thrown into detention centres and, in many cases, deported to third countries without a hearing. The Trump administration is doing that in defiance of court orders, as in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and resisting even the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that the government must “facilitate” the return of those deported in error. 

This matters for Canada because of the principle of non-refoulement under international law, which holds that refugees should not forcibly be returned to countries where they are likely to face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

It used to be hard to argue that migrants sent back under the STCA would face that, but the case seems much easier to make now. Canada should prepare for another challenge to the STCA – and possibly, a different result. 

Source: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →