Photo by Tim Wildsmith on Unsplash

Canada’s system for deciding asylum claims typically focuses on the person’s credibility, their ability to prove their identity, the evidence they can provide to support their claim of persecution, the severity of the threats they are facing, and the conditions of their country in general.

It is such a rigorous and complex system that it is ill-advised to try and navigate it without a lawyer, though having legal representation is not mandatory. There is a significant difference in the criteria for an asylum claim versus someone who becomes a refugee because of war. The person seeking asylum must demonstrate they are being personally targeted and that they are on someone’s hit list, not just experiencing what everyone else is experiencing. That’s a pretty high bar to clear.

The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is an independent administrative (as opposed to judicial) tribunal, separate from the government, courts and policing, and tasked with determining a person’s need for protection. Their website states clearly that it is “responsible for making well-reasoned decisions on immigration and refugee matters, efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.”

The courts are not totally out of the picture. In some cases, a negative finding by the IRB can be pushed to judicial review, where the Federal court is tasked with determining if the IRB member who adjudicated the claim made a legal mistake in rejecting the claim. The court can either agree with the IRB or send the claim back for a new hearing.

It all sounds rather straightforward, even hopeful, if still rather complex.

With the number of claims growing and creating a backlog which hindered the efficiency of the system, a “paper review” process was developed whereby if someone came from countries with historically high acceptance rates, they wouldn’t need to go through an oral hearing but could have their claim reviewed on paper. They would still need to prove their identity, have no serious issues of credibility, and clear security screening.

The premise was that there are just some really bad countries with obvious collapses in their treatment of people, so people managing to get to Canada from these countries probably have a legitimate need for protection. Many people have already done exactly that, and their claims were found to be credible. Sounds reasonable so far.

Until it maybe isn’t. Like snowballs that pick up more snow as they roll down the hill, the divergence of outcomes for people from specific countries becomes more obvious as time goes on. In January 2025, CBC reported that Canada’s acceptance of refugee claims proved to be better for some than others.

For example, if you were from Iran or Turkey, the likelihood of being approved for Canada’s protection was shown to be significantly higher than if you were from Nigeria or Haiti. There is conjecture as to why this might be, such as state sanctioned persecution versus gang persecution, which could determine overall ability to escape without having to leave the country.

But it also leaves a nagging concern that the high acceptance rate can function as evidence in its own right – we all know what goes on there. The low acceptance rate also can function as evidence, self-perpetuating with every denied claim – we all know what doesn’t go on there. The more denied claims there are, the more there is evidence that claims from such countries are not generally deemed credible, so such claims get more scrutiny than the others do.

As a rule of math, that might work. Probabilities are fairly reliable. But if you are that person who is truly in need of protection, and there is already a bias against you through the track record of claims that have gone on before you, it can hardly seem like you are in the same system as someone who came from a country where the track record suggests that of course you need protection. It can be a “wrong side of the tracks” situation, where you are in a deficit position right from the starting blocks.

It’s hard to imagine that the assessment of someone’s claim for protection could depend on where they are coming from. For some that could be a good thing. For others, it could be the worst thing that could have happened to them. We all want to be judged by our own situation, not by what others before us have done, or not done. When your life is on the line, this goal of fairness by the IRB is even more critical.