Why Is Canada’s Refugee Board relying on Francesca Albanese?: Randolph Hahn for Inside Policy

Reasonable question that deserves an answer. Difference between her official reports and activism? Institutional capture?

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) decides who receives refugee protection — and for many successful claimants, a pathway to permanent residence and citizenship. Those decisions depend in part on country information the IRB makes available to its decision-makers as authoritative background material.

That is why one name appearing in the IRB’s National Documentation Packages should alarm anyone who expects Canada’s refugee system to rely on balanced and credible sources: the highly controversial Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Albanese has become one of the world’s most polarizing UN officials. She has been sanctioned by the United States, condemned by several democratic governments, and publicly rebuked by Canada itself. In 2024, Canada’s Permanent Mission in Geneva described her remarks as “unacceptable and incompatible with her duty of impartiality” and added that “antisemitism has no place anywhere.”

Yet, while the Canadian government has distanced itself from Albanese, the IRB continues to include her in reports in its official country documentation for Israel and for what it characterizes as the Occupied Palestinian Territories. After experienced Canadian immigration lawyers formally challenged the decision, the Board reviewed the matter — and chose to keep her reports in place….

Source: Why Is Canada’s Refugee Board relying on Francesca Albanese?: Randolph Hahn for Inside Policy

Inside Canada’s sluggish process for deporting senior Iranian officials

Of note:

..A key challenge in such cases is that Canada’s immigration law doesn’t specify who qualifies as a senior public servant or military officer. Instead, adjudicators at the Immigration and Refugee Board have come to rely on the “top-half test,” according to which anyone found to have held a position in the upper 50 per cent of an organization’s hierarchy can be deemed senior. 

During his hearing, Mr. Omidi faced detailed questioning about his responsibilities as deputy director-general of the exploration office in Iran’s Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade, a position he held from 2013 to 2020 before moving to Canada. He was asked whether he had the power to grant or cancel mining licences (he said he did not) and whether he could hire or fire employees (he could only approve their vacation requests when his boss was away, he said). 

The hearing moved at a glacial pace, frequently delayed by the challenge of translating technical terms. At one point, it ground to a halt while the adjudicator established that mineral permissions, licences and certificates all referred to the same thing. Later, there was considerable confusion over the chemical element molybdenum. 

Through it all, Mr. Omidi painted himself as a technician with no real authority. “How could I have any power over the influence of the government with the knowledge of geology?” he said on the final day. “This is a mistake.”

The top-half test first appeared in operation manuals for immigration officials more than two decades ago. It has since been endorsed by the Federal Court, which in 2023 found that rank alone is enough to label someone a senior official, regardless of their job description. …

Source: Inside Canada’s sluggish process for deporting senior Iranian officials

Job cuts at Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada will cause asylum delays and backlogs, union charges

May well be true but cannot expect a union to argue otherwise:

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is cutting 53 jobs as part of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s push to reduce government spending, said the union representing the largest independent tribunal in the country.

The board, responsible for adjudicating asylum claims, finalized 79,462 such claims last year, and it currently has 295,522 outstanding cases in the system awaiting a decision. At this rate, it would take more than three and a half years just to clear the backlog.

These cuts — part of the federal “realignment and reallocation plan” — are happening despite significant delays in refugee and asylum claim processing times, and are going to make a bad situation worse, warned the Canada Employment and Immigration Union….

Source: Job cuts at Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada will cause asylum delays and backlogs, union charges

Globe editorial: An immigration shortcut that’s short-circuited

Agreed but will require an effective minister with strong PM support. Good to see Vineberg’s suggestions:

…The IRB should scrap the file review policy. Meanwhile, Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab should take a broader look at the system, with a particular focus on tightening up the approval of asylum claims and international student permits.

Robert Vineberg, a former immigration department director-general, has sensibly suggested that the initial determination of refugee status be moved over to the immigration department. Staff there could do in-depth interviews with claimants, which would be faster than the quasi-judicial hearings at the IRB. 

The IRB could still be used to appeal disputed decisions. However, there needs to be limits on further appeals. The current system that offers multiple avenues to challenge decisions – mapped out in an elaborate flow chart by the Parliamentary Budget Officer – needs to be simplified. 

The asylum system does need to be streamlined, but removing questioning to vet for truthfulness is going too far. For Canada’s asylum system to hold up in the coming years, it needs to operate efficiently, balancing compassion with wide-eyed realism. This will allow Canada to continue offering a safe haven to vulnerable people from around the world. 

Source: An immigration shortcut that’s short-circuited

Refugee tribunal ruled on more than 45,000 cases since 2019 without in-person hearings

Yet another policy and program failure that undermines public confidence in immigration and refugees:

The independent tribunal that decides refugee claims has since 2019 ruled on more than 45,000 asylum cases based on paperwork alone without an in-person hearing, raising concerns from the Conservatives and experts that this could dilute scrutiny and compromise national security. 

Figures provided to MPs on the Commons immigration committee by the Immigration and Refugee Board show that in that period, Iranian asylum claimants have had the most claims decided without an in-person hearing, with 10,730 claims decided based on paper reviews of their files. 

Last year, 2,218 cases of alleged persecution in Iran – where the theocratic regime has imprisoned and killed scores of its critics – were decided after reviewing the files of asylum applicants, with 2,105 decided without a hearing in 2024 and 3,124 in 2023. 

Between 2019 and 2025, the IRB decided 45,595 cases through “paper processes.” These included 4,220 paper-only asylum decisions on cases from Afghanistan. There were 484 such “file-review” adjudications from Palestinians, 6,827 from Turkey, 1,273 from Yemen, 2,542 from Pakistan and 256 from Iraq, the IRB figures show. 

Asylum claimants from Haiti had 3,379 cases decided without a hearing between 2019 and 2025, including 2,471 last year. …

James Yousif, a former member of the IRB who adjudicated on cases, has been raising concerns that paper-only decisions could heighten the risk of fraud and weaken security screening.

“It is not possible to tell a true claim from a made-up claim just by reading the documents in each file,” he said in an e-mail. “Asking questions at a hearing is absolutely essential to detecting fraud and risks to Canada’s national security. There is no substitute for this.” 

Ms. Metlege Diab previously told MPs on the committee that each person claiming asylum is subject to security screening. She said decisions are made on a case-by-case basis by the IRB tribunal, which operates independently of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

But in an e-mail to The Globe and Mail, Mr. Redekopp expressed concern that the file-review process is being used “to expedite asylum claims without interviewing claimants, even from high-risk countries like Iran.” 

“Even worse, the Immigration Minister won’t take responsibility for this security gap, saying the IRB is independent – even though she is the minister responsible for the IRB,” he said. “Canadians expect a rigorous and thorough immigration vetting process and we are calling on the Immigration Minister to take action.”…

Source: Refugee tribunal ruled on more than 45,000 cases since 2019 without in-person hearings

Youssif: Canada has a hidden asylum-policy problem

Another example of a broken system?

…As I document in a new study for the C.D. Howe Institute, this policy is problematic. Not all asylum claims are truthful, and documents may be forged. But this is impossible to detect without asking questions. The asylum hearing also serves as a screen for national security and program integrity risk, and must be halted if red flags emerge during questioning to allow the relevant minister to be notified. That mechanism cannot be engaged if claimants are never questioned.

More broadly, the IRB’s recognition rate for asylum claims has climbed to 80 per cent of claims decided on their merits, excluding files summarily closed where the claim was withdrawn or abandoned. In comparison, in 2024 Ireland accepted 30 per cent of claims on the merits, Sweden 40 per cent, and Germany 59 per cent. Research suggests that acceptance rates are a significant factor in asylum seekers’ choice of a destination country.

It is difficult to isolate the effect of any single policy change on the level of new claims, given multiple factors such as rising global migration pressures and changes to temporary immigration policies. That said, it is worth noting that the number of new asylum claims in Canada has increased since the IRB began rapidly accepting claims. A backlog of 17,000 claims in 2016 has grown to nearly 300,000 in 2025. Policies such as File Review, intended to reduce the backlog, have not only failed to do so, but may have reinforced perceptions of speed, success, and reduced scrutiny, signalling to the world that Canada’s asylum system is easy.

How was it possible for an adjudicative tribunal to implement a policy that dispenses with the act of adjudication?

Perhaps part of the answer is that the institution cannot be seen clearly. Its unique status and structure have rendered it opaque to the rest of government, which otherwise might have corrected an overreach. It may be time to rethink this model and consider options that provide ministers and cabinet with direct visibility and policy oversight, while preserving fair and independent adjudication.

James Yousif is a lawyer, former director of policy at IRCC and former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

Source: Canada has a hidden asylum-policy problem

Federal agencies fumble privacy safeguards on asylum system revamp, risking refugee data

Sigh….:

Three government agencies that partnered on a $68-million project to revamp Canada’s asylum system failed to complete mandatory privacy safeguard tests for years while the project was being implemented, CBC News has learned. 

The lack of privacy protections raises “red flags,” lawyers say, and may have put refugee claimants’ data and applications at risk.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) worked together on the “asylum interoperability project,” which would transform the asylum system into a more efficient digital one and address the ever-growing backlog of pending asylum applications, which currently sits at more than 290,000.

Earlier this year, CBC reported that the project, which launched in 2019, had been prematurely shut down in 2024 in what CBSA called an “unexpected” move.

Now, documents obtained through access-to-information legislation show there were “outstanding” privacy impact assessments (PIA) for the project, which was quietly scrapped when it was only 64 per cent complete.

According to a government digital privacy playbook, a PIA is a “policy process to identify, assess, and mitigate potential privacy risks before they happen.”

“All these steps need to be completed before the launch of the initiative,” that guide says.

Even though the interoperability project has now been scrapped, it implemented changes to how data is collected digitally and used — meaning that the completion of PIAs remains an essential part of that risk identification process, said  Andrew Koltun, an immigration and refugee lawyer who also practices privacy law.

The departments told CBC over email, however, that the privacy assessments are still incomplete. IRCC said it’s currently drafting its portion of the PIA and expects it to be done by the end of 2025.

The fact they still aren’t finished, Koltun said,  raises “a lot of red flags.”

Source: Federal agencies fumble privacy safeguards on asylum system revamp, risking refugee data

$68M project to secure, revamp Canada’s asylum system shut down unexpectedly, documents show

Complex cross organization IT project. Responded to clear need for common platform across silos, even if only partially successful.

Not convinced by arguments against such projects by advocates as current systems and approaches make asylum system more costly with more complex management and oversight.

Advocates continuing to argue for “more resources” are simply denying reality:

A $68-million project led by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) that was meant to revamp Canada’s outdated asylum system and enhance the integrity of the country’s borders was quietly shut down last year — an “unexpected” move for some in the government because it was only partly completed, internal documents show. 

Now, some critics fear the outcomes that were achieved may be more harmful than beneficial for people seeking protection in Canada.

IRCC’s “asylum interoperability project” began in 2019 and was supposed to wrap up by 2022. It came during a surge of asylum seekers entering Canada, putting pressure on an already struggling system that relied heavily on paper files. Its launch followed calls for major reform.

The main goals of the project was “to transform the asylum system” into a digital one, automate data and create real-time information sharing between three departments — IRCC, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

If these tools are so effective and being implemented, then why do we still have this backlog?- Wei Will Tao, immigration and refugee lawyer

It also hoped to “enhance integrity, security and deterrence within the asylum system,” while improving efficiency and service to claimants, documents show.

It allocated about $48.4 million to IRCC, $15.5 million to CBSA and $3.8 million to the IRB over several years to meet these goals, an internal document shows. IRCC said it had used 75 per cent of its allocated funds.

Through access to information documents, CBC News has learned the project was abandoned in February 2024 after it failed to get another extension from the Department of Finance. 

But just months after prematurely halting this project, then Immigration minister Marc Miller told the House of Commons immigration committee: “I want to reform the system. It’s not working in the way it should.”

At the time, he said Canada’s asylum and refugee system was still struggling due to volume and inefficiency.

According to records obtained by CBC, about 64 per cent of the interoperability project was accomplished. IRCC either scrapped or “deferred” the rest of the tasks to future major IT projects.

“The decision to close the project was unexpected,” reads a 2024 CBSA briefing note.

The latest IRB data shows a backlog of 288,198 pending applications as of last month — a historic high that’s nearly tripled since June 2023, when the interoperability project was well underway.

“The first question is, if these tools are so effective and being implemented, then why do we still have this backlog?” said Wei Will Tao, an immigration and refugee lawyer.

Automation, online portal among goals achieved

All three departments operate their own IT systems, “causing program integrity risks” and delays, a project document reads.

While incrementally rolling out improvements until its shutdown in 2024, the project faced “capacity issues,” “black-out periods” in IRCC’s internal application processing tool Global Case Management System (GCMS), and a “downgrade” in priorities which led to delays past its 2022 finish date, records say.

The project still managed to build an online refugee application process, and automated case creation, data entry and admissibility checks, according to documents. For IRB hearings, the project also allowed more real-time information exchange between departments.

The process to detain and remove people from Canada was also “enhanced,” according to a CBSA briefing note, citing the ability to automatically cancel valid work or study permits when a removal order is issued, among other improvements. 

But there were several wish list items the project couldn’t make happen — like a CBSA officer portal and online applications for pre-removal risk assessments (an application for people facing removal from Canada.)

Another task that was skipped — a function to “view notes associated with a claim in one place,” which would have helped officers’ workflow, CBSA records show.

In a closing note, one government official noted that “the project did deliver on every benefit identified but not all to the depth it aimed to.” 

IRCC declined an interview. The department didn’t specify which tasks it was unable to complete, but said in an email those may be part of future projects. IRCC has hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to digital modernization in the coming years.

Impacts felt, but questions remain

“The actual project itself and the fact that there’s huge funding … that came to us as a bit of a surprise,” said Tao, who’s part of a collective of experts monitoring AI and technological advances in Canada’s immigration system.

Tao said he didn’t “want to deny the positivity” of some digital advancements. But he raised questions around transparency, the kind of information being exchanged between the three departments and how it’s being used by each partner — especially because the IRB is an arms-length, independent tribunal.

“What if there’s information that’s being transmitted behind the scenes that we’re not a party to, or that could implicate our clients’ case without us knowing?” asked Tao, founder of Heron Law Offices in Burnaby, B.C.

Despite multiple followups, the IRB did not respond to CBC’s requests for information. IRCC wrote to CBC that the IRB maintains its adjudicative independence.

“We do have serious concerns about this interoperability — being yes, an efficiency tool and a way for things to be streamlined — … [but] is our ability to contest these systems being altered, or even perhaps barriered, by these tools?” Tao asked.

“Digitization is not the answer,” said Syed Hussan, spokesperson for the Migrant Rights Network. “These so-called streamline mechanisms are actually making life harder for people.”

Hussan said the digital-focused application system has “caused immense havoc” for some people with technological barriers. He also questions the “enormous focus” on sharing private information between agencies and the oversight of that.

“What is framed as a technical step forward is actually a series of policies that make it harder for refugees to gain protection,” said Hussan. “It’s part of a broader turn rightward towards Trump-like policies in the immigration system.”

Hussan said what the system actually needs is more resources for settlement organizations and claimants who need protection.

“Instead there’s actually just mass firing of federal civil servants as well as underfunding of settlement agencies and money being put into these digitization projects — which largely seem to be about streamlining removals rather than ensuring rights,” Hussan said.

Canada enforced more removal orders in the past year than in any other 12-month period since 2019 — 18,048 in the 2024-25 fiscal year, according to CBSA data.

Source: $68M project to secure, revamp Canada’s asylum system shut down unexpectedly, documents show

Globe editorial: The refugee crisis needs a new approach, not just more money 

Nice shout out to Rob Vineberg and his recommendation:

….Part of that new thinking must be abandoning the rigid rule that cases are heard in the order in which they are filed. That first-in-first-out approach combined with the soaring volumes creates the incentive for false claims. Much better, then, to hear new claims first and reduce that incentive.

Similarly, the conceit that the IRB must hear all refugee claims needs to end. Claims cannot be ignored, of course. But Robert Vineberg, a former director general of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, has made the eminently sensible suggestion that the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship should first examine cases, approving those claims that are clearly genuine. Only those that were borderline or headed for rejection would proceed on to the IRB.

That would fulfill the obligations laid down in the Singh judgment, since any rejected claimant would have the benefit of an oral hearing. And no claimant would protest about an expedited approval.

Ottawa must act to reduce the claims backlog before today’s crisis becomes tomorrow’s collapse. Otherwise, a future government may find its only option is the even more radical step of using the notwithstanding clause to suspend the effects of the Singh ruling. That would be a stunning epitaph for the Liberals’ mismanagement of the immigration system.

Source: On the Brink: The refugee crisis needs a new approach, not just more money

Ministers urged to explain how they will prevent a surge in asylum seekers from U.S. after Trump election

Suggests major increase in funding for the IRB along with some process re-engineering will be needed. Nothing reduces public support more than the perception that immigration is not being well managed as we have seen over the past two years:

Federal ministers came under pressure from MPs Thursday to explain how they plan to prevent an influx of asylum seekers from the United States after the election of Donald Trump, as a senior official at the Immigration and Refugee Board disclosed it now takes almost four years for asylum claims to be processed.

Roula Eatrides, deputy chairperson of IRB’s refugee protection division, told the Commons immigration committee Thursday that it now takes 44 months for a refugee claim to be dealt with after being referred to the board. She said the IRB has a record backlog of about 250,000 cases.

On Wednesday, immigration lawyer Richard Kurland told The Globe and Mail that because asylum claims take so long to process, undocumented migrants facing deportation from the U.S. may try to find a safe haven and “buy time” in Canada, though he said few are likely to have their claims approved.

During his campaign, Mr. Trump promised to conduct the largest deportation in American history of people living there illegally. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he will move forward with that pledge. “Really, we have no choice,” he told NBC News. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented migrants in the U.S.

The RCMP’s national headquarters confirmed Thursday it has a plan to deal with a predicted influx of migrants, informed by its experience of a surge during the first Trump presidency…

Source: Ministers urged to explain how they will prevent a surge in asylum seekers from U.S. after Trump election