A new Canadian holds a flag at a citizenship ceremony on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in April, 2019.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Seven years ago, the Immigration and Refugee Board brought in a new system intended to help clear the asylum backlog.
Its “file review” policy has resulted in 45,000 cases being ruled on without in-person hearings. But backlogs have nonetheless risen, from 17,000 unresolved asylum cases in 2016, to 300,000 in 2025. And the policy has limited the board’s ability to vet for false claims and security concerns. Far from being a solution to the backlog, the new procedure has become part of the problem.
Immigration experts and Conservative critics are raising concerns that the file review system, informally called a “paper review,” is too lax. Without the normal scrutiny of a hearing from the IRB, James Yousif, a former Immigration Department policy director, says it is easier for false or fraudulent claims to succeed.
Many cases approved through the expedited process are asylum seekers from countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq. While the claimants still undergo an initial background check, which could find individuals in security databases, questioning during an in-person hearing goes further, potentially identifying inconsistencies and probing for connections to unsavoury regimes or terrorist groups.
The IRB has defended its processes, saying each adult claimant is interviewed by an immigration department employee or Canada Border Services Agency officer. However, immigration experts say these are not substantive interviews about the truthfulness of the claim. Documents from the Immigration Ministry show that staff have been instructed not to evaluate if claims are genuine.
Refugee tribunal ruled on more than 45,000 cases since 2019 without in-person hearings
What is clear, however, is that this fast-track process, which was brought in during a period where the IRB was under threat of dissolution due to slow decision-making, hasn’t cut the backlog. While the IRB has been able to settle a higher number of cases, the number of applications in the queue has soared. This is despite IRB staffing growing from 973 employees in 2016 to 2,579 in 2024.
Some of this rise is likely due to Canada’s reputation as having a system that is favourable to asylum seekers, in part because of its hearing-free process for some applicants from certain countries. The country list with claim types was initially available publicly, before being taken down by the IRB.
While that information could help vulnerable people at risk, it could also be used by unscrupulous immigration consultants and claimants, who are allowed to stay in the country and receive certain benefits while they wait several years for a decision. Meanwhile, legitimate asylum seekers have to wait longer for the outcome of their claims.
The file review policy makes positive decisions more likely. It pushes adjudicators to make fast positive decisions, which need less documentation, as they won’t face appeals. Since the policy has been in place, acceptance rates have risen to 80 per cent. According to Michael Barutciski of the Macdonald–Laurier Institute, Canada is now an outlier that attracts more asylum seekers than other countries.
Editorial: Ottawa hasn’t learned its lesson on immigration
The policy is circular, Mr. Yousif points out, given that the countries were selected for file review because they had high rates of acceptance. Now that they are on the list, they are likely to have high approval rates in perpetuity.
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.