Paper-only asylum rulings probed
Canada’s refugee tribunal has processed over 45,000 cases since 2019 without in‑person hearings, and critics are pushing back—arguing paper-only decisions undermine due process for claimants. The debate could reshape timelines and adjudicatory practices for cross‑border humanitarian cases. (theglobeandmail.com)
An access-to-information analysis by lawyer James Yousif found that 24,599 asylum claimants were accepted into Canada via the IRB’s “file‑review” process without any in‑person questioning between Jan. 1, 2019 and Feb. 28, 2023. (openparliament.ca) The Immigration and Refugee Board reported it finalized roughly 80,000 decisions across its divisions in the 2023–24 fiscal year, including 55,300 Refugee Protection Division decisions, situating the file‑review approvals as a meaningful portion of overall caseload management. (publications.gc.ca) IRB guidance describes the “file‑review” stream as one of two tracks for less‑complex claims (alongside short hearings), where decisions can be rendered without oral testimony under the Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims. (irb-cisr.gc.ca) The IRB also publishes a formal Request for File‑Review Processing form and instructions for claimants and counsel, with the public form page updated on April 2, 2025, confirming the process remains an available adjudicatory option. (irb-cisr.gc.ca) The C.D. Howe Institute commentary by James Yousif — which traces file‑review to a 2017 Yeates pilot and its institutionalization in 2019 — argues the practice raises legal, security and governance concerns and may exceed the IRB’s statutory authority. (cdhowe.org) Conservative members of the House of Commons Citizenship and Immigration Committee, including Michelle Rempel Garner and Brad Redekopp, signalled they would press Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab to end the file‑review practice following the C.D. Howe findings. (europesays.com) Yousif told the parliamentary committee on Feb. 23, 2026 that ending file‑review and restoring routine in‑person hearings should be a priority, and he recommended ministers assume explicit responsibility for asylum policy rather than leaving the change to tribunal instruction. (openparliament.ca)
