Chairperson's Appearance before the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights (RIDR) June 2024

Funding Overview

Key Messages

• In 2024-25, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has $281 million in permanent funding to render quality decisions and resolve immigration and refugee protection cases in a timely manner.
• A large portion of this permanent funding ($150 million annually) was approved in Budget 2022 to support the stability and integrity of Canada’s asylum system.
• This permanent funding allows the Board to process up to 50,000 refugee claims annually and stabilize its workforce, increasing its permanent complement to approximately 2,100 permanent full-time employees.
• In addition, Budget 2022 announced a further temporary top-up investment of $87 million over two years, starting in 2023-24. This additional investment helps address the forecasted rise in asylum claims by funding up to 10,000 claims over the same two-year period, with over 300 temporary employees (including approximately 100 members).
• While this funding has provided the Board with a much-needed increase in processing capacity, it is not enough to address the continued increases in intake.
• Budget 2024 proposed additional funding for the IRB, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to support the stability and integrity of Canada's asylum system.
• $743.5 million over five years starting in 2024-25, with $0.9 million in remaining amortization, and $159.5 million in ongoing funding.
• The IRB, along with its partners and central agencies, is currently reviewing the details of this announcement.

Background

• The IRB has seen significant growth over the last few years – the largest in the Board’s 35-year history.
• The growth in the IRB’s budget and employee complement is substantial, with the Board essentially doubling in size and budget between 2017-18 and 2021-22.
• This enabled the Board to continue to process admissibility and detention decisions, and immigration appeal decisions, while processing up to 50,000 refugee claims and 13,500 refugee appeals a year.
• Through Budget 2022, the IRB, IRCC and CBSA received funding to support increased capacity for Canada’s asylum system:
• $1.3 billion over five years starting in 2022-23; and,
• $331.2 million per year ongoing.
• Budget 2022 included a significant and permanent increase to the Board’s salary and operating budget - ongoing permanent funding of $150 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2023-24.
• In addition, Budget 2022 announced a further temporary investment of $87 million over two years to support hiring additional staff (over 300 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) including 100 members) to process a further 10,000 refugee claims over a two-year period (2,500 in year 1 and 7,500 in year 2).
• The IRB also received $2 million of temporary funding in 2024-25 for Ukrainian settlement measures.
• Planned spending for 2024-25 is split as 68% for asylum, 12% for immigration, and 20% for internal services (see details below available in GC InfoBase).

*Any potential Budget 2024 funding is not included in financial tables.

Historical and Future Funding Profile

• In the last couple of years, the IRB has received progressive support through budget and fiscal updates, doubling its size and stabilizing its workforce significantly. With a focus on stability and integrity, the Government announced permanent funding, facilitating the processing of up to 50,000 refugee claims annually and ensuring the stability of Canada’s asylum system.
• Under Budget 2022, the IRB received new temporary funding to address the surge in intake and effectively manage the increased workload, ensuring timely processing of claims and maintaining the integrity of Canada’s asylum system.
• The increased funding allowed the Board to achieve a milestone by finalizing the highest number of claims in its history, reaching 79,700 decisions during the fiscal year 2023-2024.
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
• The IRB is committed to meeting its savings targets following the Budget 2023 announcement of the Refocusing Government Spending initiative by reaching $14 million in ongoing savings by 2026-27.
• In 2024-25, the IRB will have $281 million in permanent funding. ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

Key statistics

Footnotes:

• Actual authorities through 2022-23 as per Departmental Results Reports (DRRs).
• Current authorities year to date 2023-24.
• Planned authorities for 2024-25 as per Main Estimates.
• Planned authorities for 2025-26 and 2026-27 as per Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU) 2024-25.
• *Details regarding Budget 2024 have been excluded from financial tables.

Note: Full-time equivalents (FTEs) are used in public reporting. The use of FTEs captures part-time employees, temporary employees, and those who have worked for the organization for less than a full year. Headcount figures are provided by Human Resources and represent the number of total employees at a point in time, regardless of their employment status or hours of work.

Footnotes:

• Planned authorities and FTEs in 2023-24 and 2024-25 include Budget 2022 announcements to provide permanent funding and temporary top-up funding to the IRB.
• Budget 2022 Re-baseline and temporary top-up is net of the portion set aside for Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), Shared Services Canada (SSC) and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) for accommodation, core informatic services and employee benefit plan (centrally held by TBS).
• *Details regarding Budget 2024 have been excluded from financial tables.

Text version - IRB Funding Profile (2019-2027)

IRB funding profile (2019-2027)

Program	Actuals Authorities						Planned Authorities
	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23	2023-24	2024-25	2025-26	2026-27
A-Base	$133 M	$136 M	$138 M	$138 M	$141 M	$295 M	$281 M	$281 M	$278 M
Temporary Funding and reprofile	$40 M	$94 M	$157 M	$158 M	$159 M	$52 M	$2 M	$-	$-
Temporary Top-up	$-	$-	$-	$-	$-	$27 M	$52 M	$-	$-
Full Time Equivalent Base	1,245	1,577	1,778	2,028	2,169	2,236	2,201	2,136	2,128
Full Time Equivalent Top-up					2,169	2,368	2,493	2,136
Total Funding	$173 M	$230 M	$295 M	$296 M	$300 M	$370 M	$335 M	$281 M	$278 M
Variance from previous year (%)		33%	28%	0%	1%	23%	-9%	-16%	-1%

*Details regarding Budget 2024 have been excluded from financial tables.

IRB Available Financial and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Resources (2022-2027)

Note: Full-time equivalents (FTEs) are used in public reporting. The use of FTEs captures part-time employees, temporary employees, and those who have worked for the organization for less than a full year. Headcount figures are provided by Human Resources and represent the number of total employees at a point in time, regardless of their employment status or hours of work.

*Details regarding Budget 2024 have been excluded from FTE tables.

Refocusing Government Spending

Key Messages

• The IRB’s target is a reduction of spending, which represents approximately 5% of its ongoing budget:
• $1.8M in fiscal year 2023-24,
• $8.3M in 2024-25,
• $10.5M in 2025-26, and
• $13.6M in 2026-27 & ongoing.
• ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ the IRB is committed to meeting its savings targets.
• These savings will be realized without compromising the Board’s commitment to delivering quality, timely decisions on immigration and refugee matters and without any job losses.

If pressed:

• IRB efforts to refocus government spending include:
1. Reducing spending on consulting, professional services, and travel:
• reducing our use and reliance on contractors
• relying on more virtual meetings to spend less on travel.
2. Reducing spending on general operations:
• focussing on things that are no longer needed or could be done more cost effectively. For example, we are eliminating 33 vacant positions, and we will be using more digital communications, to spend less on printers, photocopiers, and postage.
• IRB’s reduction target excluded direct program expenditures that would impact access to justice for claimants such as interpreter services, designated representatives, and translation costs.

Background

• In Budget 2023, the Government announced the Refocusing Government Spending initiative to be implemented over the following five years.
• The 2023 Fall Economic Statement announced that the government will extend and expand its efforts to refocus government spending, in the amount of $345.6M in 2025-26, and $691M ongoing. With respect to IRB contributions to phase 2, this is pending further detail from the centre.

Summary of Expected Impact

• The proposed spending reductions are designed to limit any impacts on the IRB’s capacity to deliver on its current productivity targets for the adjudication of immigration and refugee cases or on the quality of decisions the Board makes. Over the next two years, the IRB will manage through vacancies and attrition the 33 positions that have been identified for elimination – no job loss is anticipated.
• To meet its targets, the IRB is currently advancing the development of sustainable business process transformations and optimizations and is continuing its investments in digital innovation projects designed to transform its current operating models and processes. The continued use of technology and new technology assisted tools will allow the Board to realize these efficiencies. The Board will not reduce spending on direct program expenditures that would impact access to justice for claimants including, interpreter services, designated representatives, and translation costs to achieve its targets.

Forced Global Displacement - Fact Sheet

• According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) statistics database, last updated in October 2023^{Note 1} , there are approximately 110 million forcibly displaced people, worldwide, as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order:
• 36.4 million refugees;
• 62.5 million internally displaced;
• 6.1 million asylum seekers; and,
• 5.3 million people in need of international protection.
• In the first half of 2023, asylum seekers submitted 1.6 million new claims:
  • United States: 560,000 individual claims;
  • Germany: 150,000;
  • Spain: 87,100;
  • Mexico: 74,800;
  • France: 60,400.
• Of note, an asylum seeker^{Note 2} is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution, war or violence in another country, but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim.
• A refugee^{Note 3} is a person who has fled their own country because they are at risk of persecution, war or violence. To qualify as a refugee, the IRB must determine that the asylum seeker can’t go home because they meet one of two conditions: a well-founded fear of persecution and/or they are a person in need of protection.
• In terms of refugee resettlement, according to the UNHCR Global Trends report, for the fourth year in a row, Canada maintained the top spot for the number of refugees resettled globally, with more than 46,000 refugees being welcomed in 2022 (2023 IRCC Annual Report to Parliament).
• In comparison, almost 29,000 refugees resettled in the USA in 2022, double the 13,700 who had resettled the previous year (https://www.unhcr.org/publications/global-trends-2022).
• Germany admitted nearly 6,000 refugees under resettlement and humanitarian admission programs in 2022, and had set itself a target of 6,500 places in 2023.

Footnotes

The data for the latest year (2023) is available up until the mid-year, except Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre data on Internally Displaced People which is available until end-2022. Information available here: https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/

Return to note 1 referrer

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/

Return to note 2 referrer

https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/

Return to note 3 referrer

Quality Assurance Framework For Decision-Making

Key Messages

• The IRB maintains the adjudicative independence of its members and is committed to maintaining quality and consistency in its
  decision-making. This contributes to ensuring access to justice and strengthening public confidence in the Board’s work.
• Monitoring of quality issues is done through the Board’s Quality Assurance Framework for Decision-Making (QAF), published in
  May 2021.
• An independent review identified the Framework as an international best practice. An updated QAF was subsequently published in March 2023.
• The Framework provides an overview of the activities, processes, strategies, and structures that contribute to quality and consistent decision-making, as they relate to adjudication across the IRB.
• To this end, the Board has taken steps to enhance quality
  decision-making focused on enhanced training, mentorship, and monitoring, and continues to build upon these initiatives.
  • Training for new members: All new IRB members undertake a rigorous training program focusing on enhanced decision-making skills on determinative issues in hearings and delivering quality decisions, including specialized training on vulnerable persons and persons who are unrepresented. A review of New Member Training was also completed in fiscal year 2023-24.
  • Adjudicative policy and support tools: The IRB published revised Guidelines 8 and 3 in fiscal year 2023-24. The Board also provided training to both new and experienced members on the Board’s revised Gender guidelines to strengthen our approach to gender-based cases, as well as sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and sex characteristics cases. In support of its members, the Board launched Member Information Portals for the RPD and the RAD.
  • Support and tools for external parties appearing before the Board: In support of improved access to justice, the IRB increased transparency and the expectations of persons and counsel appearing before the Board by increasing access to decisions. Additionally, it is enhancing its website, and claimant support tools. The Board continues to implement enhancements to is designated representative and interpretation services programs.

Background

• An independent review of the Framework, completed in 2021, identified the Framework as an international best practice:

  “I carefully reviewed the IRB’s impressive Quality Assurance Framework. International best practice in administrative justice involves ensuring that tribunals are set up to get decisions right, set processes right and put errors right. The QAF puts in place high quality, robust processes to maximize decisional accuracy, prepare members to render accurate decisions through a fair procedure and to oversee potential errors in decision-making. I would have no hesitation in recommending that other administrative tribunals in Canada and further afield use the IRB’s QAF as a model to optimize their own processes.” - Dr. Paul Daly, University Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa

• The IRB’s QAF is organized according to the stages of a continuous improvement cycle: Plan, Do, Monitor & Measure, and Adjust. Although many of the activities run concu​rrently, there is a natural flow of progression. (fig. 1 below)

Text version - Quality Assurance Framework for Quality Decision-Making

Plan

• Identify and prioritize training and mentoring needs
• Identify and prioritize quality evaluation and audit plan
• Identify adjudicative policy tools
• Identify innovative solutions and support tools

Do 

• Merit based recruitment
• Training for new members
• Professional development
• Mentorship
• Reasons review by Legal Services
• Adjudicative policy and support tools
• Adjudicative consistency groups
• Specialized teams/training
• Support and tools for external parties appearing before the Board

Monitor

• Performance management
• Internal and external reporting
• Appeal and/or judicial review
• Review higher court decisions
• Quality Centres

Measure

• Evaluations
• Reviews
• External audits
• Results of member complaints

Adjust

• Develop and implement management action plans (Audits, third-party reviews)
• Revise training programs
• Develop and implement adjudicative policy and support tools
• Individual remedial programs

Measures to Support Individuals Before The IRB and Designated Representative

Key Messages

The IRB has measures in place to support individuals, whether or not they are represented by counsel. These include:

All divisions

• Members are trained to support individuals not represented by counsel to help them understand the proceedings, participate meaningfully, and support a fair process.
• Designated Representatives are provided for subjects of proceedings that are under 18 years of age or are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings.
• Reference papers created and updated by IRB Legal Services that are publicly available on the Board’s website under Legal Resources (i.e., Interpretation of Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection Case Law, Weighing Evidence).
• Plain language guides and forms (e.g., to help prepare persons concerned for their detention review or admissibility, information for prospective bondspersons, etc.), some of which are available in 12 of the most frequently requested languages other than French or English.

Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division

• National Documentation Packages: The IRB produces a thorough package on country conditions for every refugee-producing country so that there is a baseline level of evidence for all claims, including those where the claimant is self-represented.

Refugee Protection Division only

• Virtual “ready tours” that allow individuals to experience the environment of a hearing and ask questions about the process.

Refugee Appeal Division only

• Virtual Information sessions offered through Microsoft Teams, in English and in French, to help appellants through the process.

Immigration Appeal Division only

• In immigration appeals, pathways for informal resolution without a hearing and personalized appeal readiness meetings with self-represented appellants are available.

Additional Information - Designated Representatives (DR)

• A DR is usually a parent, family member, legal guardian, or friend. When none of these individuals can act as a DR, the IRB will contract a DR to represent the person. This representative is called a contracted DR and is identified by the IRB from, for example, a child protection agency or a law firm.
• The total amount spent last fiscal year (2023-24) on DRs was almost $500K.
• The IRB member has discretion to choose a DR and would normally not refuse to designate a proposed DR. Family members, legal guardians, friends, and other community support persons are usually considered first to fulfill the role of DR unless the member identifies that the needs of a person have changed, it is no longer in their interest to remain with the DR or the DR is unavailable or unwilling to continue in their role. The member would consider the evidence they have and ultimately decide.
• To be a designated as a representative, the person must:
• be 18 years of age or older;
• understand the nature of the proceedings;
• be willing and able to act in the best interests of the subject of the proceedings; and,
• not have interests that conflict with those of the subject of the proceedings.
• In addition, contracted DRs must:
• hold a valid reliability security status, granted or approved by the IRB, or as an equivalent, have a valid police record check or “verification request” which includes criminal records checks, vulnerable sector checks and any similar verification, within the past 10 years;
• complete a physical security and information technology security assessment if there is a requirement to handle or store protected information; and,
• ideally live in the vicinity of where the claimant lives. 
• The responsibilities of a DR include:
• meeting the subject of the proceedings and helping to prepare their case;
• deciding whether to retain counsel and, if counsel is retained, instructing counsel or assisting the subject of the proceedings in instructing counsel;
• making decisions regarding proceedings before the IRB or assisting the subject of the proceedings in making those decisions;
• keeping the subject of the proceedings informed about their case, including for example requirements, deadlines and options;
• assisting in gathering evidence to support and advance the case of the subject of the proceedings and, if necessary, being a witness at the hearing;
• protecting the interests of the subject of the proceedings and putting forward the best possible case to the division;
• informing and consulting the subject of the proceedings to the extent possible when making decisions about the case;
• attending all proceedings (i.e., pre-hearing conferences, interlocutory hearings, and hearings on the merits);
• signing documents normally signed by the subject of the proceedings, where they are unable to sign or should not sign because they do not have sufficient understanding, on behalf of the subject. In some cases it may be advisable to sign these documents in addition to the subject signing where the subject has some capacity to do so;
• in consultation with counsel, if any, explaining the results of the proceedings and impacts of the decision on the subject of the proceedings; and,
• if applicable, preparing and filing an appeal at the RAD or IAD in consultation with counsel, if any.

Counsel Representation Before the IRB

Key Messages

• High Volume Counsel (i.e., counsel with 150+ cases) impede the IRB’s ability to schedule cases in a timely manner.
• Unprofessional and/or inappropriate counsel conduct has a direct, negative impact on the efficiency and integrity of proceedings.
• Counsel conduct issues are addressed: through case management/file review, reports to regulatory bodies, or in the most serious cases, barring representatives.
• Approximately 250 complaints were reviewed by the IRB in 2022-23, most of them coming from Refugee Protection Division.

Background

High-Volume Counsel

• HVCs are convened to a scheduling conference. If counsel has an outstanding number of cases at the conclusion, they are advised to come back with a plan to schedule the outstanding cases. Since August of last year, there have been approximately 55 scheduling conferences resulting in 1,650 cases being scheduled.
• Voluminous - late - disclosure
  • trend toward using AI to amass disclosure that is not sustainable.
• High volume counsel (+ 150 principal claims)
  •  As of April 2024, of approximately 3,000 counsels of record:
• 400 counsel with more than 150 principal files
• 100 of those 400 are not yet a concern because they have “younger” caseloads
• As of March 31, 2024, the Board had 42 HVCs with a combined case load of approximately 21,687:
  • 2,493 scheduled cases;
  • 9,522 actionable cases; and,
• 9,672 non-actionable cases.

Counsel Conduct

• Range : poor quality representation or systematic non-compliance with rules and procedures, to unauthorized practice of law and fabrication of evidence.
• In 2022-23, the IRB conducted two proceedings to prevent a representative from appearing before the Board (Rezaei proceeding). Both representatives were found to be unauthorized, paid representatives and both were prohibited from appearing before the IRB indefinitely.

Efficiency Measures

Key Messages

• The IRB has introduced a suite of measures in the past few years to drive efficiencies across the system - from intake to recourse.
• These measures include a number of digital initiatives such as the shift to virtual hearings, the launch of the MyCase portal, the adoption of electronic files and improved interoperability with our partners (IRCC and CBSA), to a number of case management strategies and quality initiatives – all of which have contributed to increasing the Board’s productivity.
• Further to the Budget 2024 announcement, the IRB will continue working collaboratively with asylum partners and will leverage the funding in order to maximize efficiencies and help strengthen Canada’s asylum system.
• To this end, the Board is implementing a new strategic plan designed to build a modern and accessible tribunal, further streamline operations and simplify processes, and position the IRB to deliver on its mandate of making sound, timely, and quality decisions in accordance with the law.

If Pressed on Virtual Hearings:

• The IRB’s hearing model is virtual by default and provides flexibility for access to in-person hearings for individuals appearing before the Board as per the Practice Notice issued in June 2023.
• The virtual by default model has allowed the IRB to expand national case management, increasing access to justice overall. As of April 1, 2024, 99% of hearings have been held virtually, representing 135,500 with a satisfaction rate over 97% as reported in the Refugee Protection Division post-hearing surveys.
• The IRB also provides access to on-site technology for those who do not have private space or the required technological tools.

Background

• The Board has taken a number of steps to realize efficiencies:
• Advanced the IRB’s digital transformation agenda, including the launch of the MyCase Portal and adoption of electronic files, so that those appearing before the Board may interact with it in a digital and increasingly efficient manner.
• Shifted to a virtual hearings operating model, which allows the Board to maximize its capacity by assigning files to members across different regions.
• Further to the Practice Notice: Scheduling of virtual and in-person hearings at the IRB, hearings are still virtual by default. However, updated procedures allow many requests for in-person hearings to be accepted without the need to provide reasons.
• Established a dedicated Task Force for Less Complex Claims (TFLCC) to process less complex claims much more efficiently – in recognition that not all files need to be treated the same. Some are easier to adjudicate, and some can be accepted without a hearing, while others require a short hearing.
• Implemented enhanced case management and scheduling strategies to reduce postponements and move files through the system quickly, including a national scheduling and file management approach to optimize the use of member capacity.
• Enhanced quality assurance measures, such as advanced training on decision-making (e.g., to focus on determinative issues and point first adjudication, as well as plain language writing) and on country and claim types to support both the quality and timeliness of decision-making.
• Leveraged advanced technology to realize efficiencies, including new adjudicative tools, such as the Country Landing Pages, which is a comprehensive webpage that provides members with jurisprudence and research products to support decision-making.
• From a systems-wide perspective, the Board has:
• Worked with IRCC and CBSA to establish the Asylum System Management Board, a deputy minister-level governance body to achieve common situational awareness; identify pain points and jointly develop system-wide solutions.
• Improved sharing of asylum information by enhancing the interoperability of IT systems with IRCC/CBSA, which has enabled faster and more efficient sharing of information across the continuum.
• Worked with asylum system partners to contribute to the launch of an Integrated Claim Analysis Centre (ICAC) pilot, which optimizes files, so they are hearing ready when referred to the IRB.
• Moving forward, the IRB is implementing a new strategic plan, “Horizon 2026-27”, to further streamline operations and simplify processes to be ready to address evolving demands.
• The use of technology to automate routine and repetitive tasks, to receive and communicate information, or to make available general information, will be key.

Chairperson's Guidelines (Adjudicative Instruments)

Key Messages

• The Chairperson’s Guidelines assist decision-makers in carrying out their duties by providing guiding principles and best practices for adjudicating cases.
• Guidelines promote quality, fairness, consistency, and efficiency in decision-making.

If pressed:

• IRB members are independent decision makers. The Guidelines are not binding, but members are expected to follow them or state reasons why they did not.

Background

• The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) confirms that the IRB must be both fair and expeditious and proceed as informally as natural justice permits. In this context, fairness is characterized by timely, transparent, justified, and responsive reasons for decision, and efficiency is enhanced by the implementation of adjudicative instruments such as the Chairperson’s Guidelines.
• Effectively, Chairperson’s Guidelines are amended or new ones are issued to ensure that they incorporate developments in law, expert advice, and evidence-based developments in social science. The current suite includes the following:
• Guideline 2 - Detention: provides guidance to the Immigration Division in the conduct of detention reviews. It deals with several topics, including long-term detention, the notion of "danger to the public", and alternatives to detention. Effective September 2010 / Last Amended April 2021
• Guideline 3 - Proceedings Involving Minors: provides guidance on the application of the Best Interests of the Child principle to proceedings in all four Divisions of the Board and enhanced guidance on the issue of obtaining evidence in a minor's claim and assessing that evidence.
  Effective September 1996 / Last Amended October 2023
• Guideline 4 - Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board: promotes sensitive and trauma-informed adjudication, greater understanding of gender considerations, and the importance of avoiding myths, stereotypes and incorrect assumptions. It applies to all four Divisions.
  Effective November 1996 / Last Amended October 2023
• Guideline 6 – Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding: explains the process the four Divisions follow before and during proceedings. It sets out what the IRB expects of participants and what participants can expect from the IRB concerning the scheduling of hearings and applications to change the date and time of a hearing.
  Effective April 2010 / Last Amended December 2012
• Guideline 7 - Concerning Preparation and Conduct of a Hearing in the Refugee Protection Division (RPD): explains what the RPD does before and during the hearing to make its proceedings efficient but still fair. The purpose is to allow the RPD to make the best use of its expertise as a specialist tribunal by focussing on the issues which it has identified as determinative.
  Effective December 2006 / Last Amended December 2012
• Guideline 8 - Accessibility to IRB Proceedings — Procedural Accommodations and Substantive Considerations: provides guidance on granting procedural accommodations and on situations where a person's disability, vulnerability and / or personal characteristics may be relevant to the assessment of the merits of the case. It also provides direction on the use of appropriate language, avoiding myths and stereotypes, the principles of trauma-informed adjudication and intersectionality, and the protection of confidential information.
  Effective December 2006 / Last Amended October 2023
• Guideline 9 -​ Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC)​: promotes greater understanding and establishes guiding principles for members in adjudicating cases involving SOGIESC. It addresses the challenges SOGIESC individuals may face in presenting their cases before the IRB.
  Effective May 2017 / Last Amended December 2021

a. Guideline 4

Key Messages

• The objective of the Chairperson’s Guideline 4 - Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board (Guideline 4) is to foster consistency and fairness in the conduct of IRB proceedings and decision-making involving gender considerations.
• It assists members of all Divisions of the Board in carrying out their duties to conduct fair hearings and render well-reasoned decisions in accordance with the law and the caselaw.
• Guideline 4 recognizes how factors such as gender, race, and socio-economic status influence the experience of individuals and that the impact of trauma may create barriers to access to justice. Members and adjudicative staff apply trauma-informed adjudication principles to cases, involving gender considerations, where trauma impacts a person’s ability to fully participate in the proceedings.
• The Board has taken measures to respond to and remain relevant within the changing landscape of gender-based adjudication since the last update of Guideline 4 - Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution in 1996, including through initiatives such as the creation of the Gender-Related Task Force (GRTF), which specializes in gender-based claims.

Background

• Gender-based violence refers to violence based on gender norms and unequal power dynamics, perpetrated against someone based on their gender, gender expression, gender identity, or perceived gender. It takes many forms, including physical, economic, sexual, as well as emotional (psychological) abuse.
• The Board takes measures to respond to and remain relevant within the changing landscape of gender-based adjudication, including through initiatives such as the creation of the GRTF, which specializes in gender-based claims.
• It ensures respectful, trauma-informed, and consistent adjudication of gender-related claims.
• Guideline 4 emphasizes the importance of taking into account the historical, social, and political context of an individual person before the IRB.
• Guideline 4 broadens the focus to include all genders and gender identities, while recognizing that women and girls and sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) individuals are disproportionately impacted by gender-based violence, gender inequality and discrimination.
• In addition, Guideline 4 provides other important considerations and principles including:
• Addresses myths, stereotypes, and incorrect assumptions on gender-based violence and trauma that can adversely impact the adjudication.
• Notes that Members and adjudicative staff should apply trauma-informed adjudication (TIA) principles to cases, involving gender considerations, where trauma impacts a person’s ability to fully participate in the proceedings.
• Explains that TIA is a form of a trauma-informed approach that is specifically tailored to adjudicative processes. The principles of TIA should not be interpreted or applied in a way that infringes on the independence of Members or the Board.
• Notes that TIA’s principles should be applied by all those engaged in the adjudication process. Further, these principles also cannot infringe on the procedural fairness the IRB equally owes to all parties to a proceeding.
• Explains that an allegation of trauma does not prevent Members from making an adverse credibility finding. Members may draw a negative inference from material inconsistencies, omissions, or implausibility in the evidence that have no reasonable explanations.
• A reasonable finding of implausibility should consider the cultural, economic, and political context of the individual and the country in question.
• Provides substantive guidance on gender as a basis for persecution, state protection, internal flight alternatives and gender-specific considerations for detention reviews, admissibility hearings, and immigration appeals.
• As for any other guidelines, Guideline 4 does not change the requirements of the legislation and case law.
• Members of the four Divisions received training on Guideline 4.

b. Guideline 8

Key Messages

• The purpose of Guideline 8 – Accessibility to IRB Proceedings – Procedural Accommodations and Substantive Considerations (Guideline 8), last updated in 2023, is to enhance access to justice at the IRB and ensure that those appearing before the Board are treated fairly.
• Guideline 8 also provides direction on the use of appropriate language, avoiding myths and stereotypes, the principles of trauma-informed adjudication, and the protection of confidential information.
• The previous version of Guideline 8’s definition of “vulnerable person” set a high threshold as it required the person’s ability to present their case to be “severely impaired”, which was a higher standard than what has developed in evolving human rights law for the duty to accommodate.
• Provides enhanced guidance on procedural accommodations including a non-exhaustive list of possible accommodations available and de-emphasizes the need to obtain expert evidence to grant accommodations.

Background

• The former version of Guideline 8 was last updated in 2012. At the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in 2017, the former Chairperson committed to undertaking a review of the guideline.
• Removes the need to designate an individual as a “vulnerable person” and the requirement for an individual to establish that their ability to present their case is “severely impaired”. The Guideline focuses on accommodations.
• Consultations with external stakeholders and subject-matter experts highlighted concerns that the removal of the term “vulnerable” would have a negative impact on the most vulnerable groups in our society, that the jurisprudence that has been developed to uphold real or substantive equality for vulnerable groups (e.g., elderly, women, persons with disabilities, etc.) would risk being lost, and that the removal of the “vulnerable” from the guideline may adversely impact their ability to rely on this jurisprudence.
• To address these concerns, the revised Guideline 8 was drafted to focus on the needs of individuals and removing barriers notably by proposing a broader interpretation of the term “vulnerability”.
• Incorporates the IRB’s obligations under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and other legislation to increase access to justice for individuals who may face barriers to a fair proceeding considering disabilities, vulnerabilities and/or personal characteristics.
• Provides guidance on situations where a person's disabilities, vulnerabilities and/or personal characteristics may be relevant to the assessment of the merits of the case (for example, guidance on the importance of considering the Guideline when assessing the determinative issues of the proceeding). It assists Members when they determine the weight that should be assigned to an expert report as well as when they assess credibility of individuals. It reminds them that they should consider an individual's particular disability and/or vulnerability, including evidence of any potential impact on the individual's ability to testify.
• Members of the four Divisions received training on Guideline 8.

c. Guideline 9

Key Messages

• Initially published in May 2017, Guideline 9 provides guidance to decision-makers on the adjudication of refugee and immigration cases involving Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC).
• Guideline 9 promotes a greater understanding and awareness of unique challenges faced by SOGIESC individuals, including particular challenges they may face in presenting their case before the Board.
• Guideline 9 was revised in December 2021 providing guidance to Members through updated and clarified terminology and additional examples of stereotypes, incorrect assumptions, and relevant case law.
• All Board Members received training on the revised Guideline 9 in fiscal year 2022-2023, in conjunction with training on Guideline 4.
• Material and resources to provide enhanced orientation and awareness for IRB staff, interpreters, and designated representatives were also developed and disseminated.

Background

• Guideline 9 was first introduced in 2017 to provide clear and consistent guidance on cases involving sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and reviewed in 2019 as part of a commitment made when the Guideline was created to assess if and how the Guideline was being applied and to develop recommendations to further strengthen its implementation. The review resulted in 11 recommendations. The revised Guideline was published in December 2021.
• Recommendations touched on: strengthening elements of the Guideline itself; enhancing training offered to IRB registry personnel, interpreters, and designated representatives; ensuring more effective internal data capture; and implementing additional safeguards to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice in the hearings process. Implementation of the Review’s recommendations was completed in fiscal year 2022–2023.
• Of particular note, “sex characteristics” were added as a focus of the Guideline for greater inclusivity of intersex individuals. The Guideline now makes explicitly clear that it is applicable to proceedings involving “Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics” or “SOGIESC” (pronounced SO-GEE-ESQ).
• The Guideline provides enhanced guidance to decision-makers on refugee and immigration cases involving SOGIESC individuals through updated and clarified terminology along with interpretive changes that help Members to identify their own biases and assumptions and to assess credibility.
• A list of relevant terms available in English, French and 20 of the most used languages in proceedings at the Board was updated and published at the same time as the revised Guideline. The list assists interpreters during SOGIESC-related proceedings.

Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA)

Key Messages

• Questions about the court case related to the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) and questions about the impact of the STCA on intake are more properly addressed by my IRCC colleagues.
• Approximately 9% of all refugee claimant cases referred are STCA exceptions.
• Cases processed by the Refugee Protection Division under an STCA exception cannot be appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division.

Background

• On March 25, 2023, Canada and the U.S. expanded the application of STCA to the entire land border, including internal waterways.

Statistics

• Following the expansion, the volume of claims referred to the IRB by individuals entering Canada between ports of entry decreased, representing approximately 32% of Refugee Protection Division (RPD) intake in 2022-23 to less than 1% in 2024, to date. However, overall volumes have increased through other modes of entry resulting in an average of 15,500 claims referred to the IRB per month in the first three months of 2024.
• Since January 2017, intake at the RPD includes approximately 9% of claims under STCA exceptions.
• The most common reason for exceptions is having a family member in Canada.
• Claims referred to the IRB under exceptions to the STCA doubled following expansion, aligned with the doubling of overall intake.
• For that same period (January 2017 to December 2023 inclusively), 10% of finalizations rendered at the RPD were on cases that would not have been eligible due to coming from a Safe Third Country but were referred under an STCA exception.

Legal Framework and exceptions

• The Canada–U.S. STCA is a binational agreement that came into effect in December 2004 and is implemented through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Regulations). It does not apply to Canadian or U.S. citizens or stateless persons who are habitual residents of either of these two countries.
• The exceptions are found in Articles 4 and 6 of the STCA and sections 159.5 and 159.6 of the Regulations and can be divided in four categories:
• the unaccompanied minor exception;
• family member exceptions, such as having a spouse or parent who is already a citizen or permanent resident;
• document holder exceptions, such as having a valid work or study permit; and
• public interest exceptions, such as facing the possibility of a death sentence in the U.S.
• For refugee claimants entering Canada, qualifying under one or more of these exceptions means that they are able to pursue their claim in Canada. If they do not meet an exception, they are returned to the U.S. to pursue their asylum claim.
• Refugee claimants coming to Canada under the STCA must still meet all other eligibility criteria set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
• On March 24, 2023, Canada and the U.S. announced the expansion of the STCA across the entire land border, including internal waterways. The expansion took effect as of 12:01 a.m. EDT on March 25, 2023. Referrals of claims at the RPD by irregular crossers were significantly reduced following the expansion now representing less than 1% of intake. The proportion of claims referred to the Board under STCA exceptions remains at 9% of intake since the expansion.
  • The IRB continues to receive referrals by irregular border crossers due to the eligibility decision backlog at IRCC and CBSA.
• The authority for the Canada–U.S. STCA stems from section 101(1)(e) of the IRPA, which provides that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the RPD if the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated in the regulations.
• Section 102(2) sets out the factors that the Governor in Council must consider in designating a country as a safe third country. They are:
  • whether the country is a party to the Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture;
  • its policies and practices with respect to claims and obligations under these two conventions;
  • its human rights record; and
  • whether it is a party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.

Ineligibility for STCA compared to ineligibility for prior claim in “Five-Eyes” country

• For ineligibility to have a claim referred to the RPD because of a previous refugee claim made in the U.S. or in another Five Eyes country (IRPA, s. 101(1)(c.1)), the claimant would be entitled to an assessment of the merits of the refugee claim at an oral hearing by a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) Officer. In Seklani, 2020 FC 778 (July 23, 2020), the Federal Court held that s. 101(1)(c.1) was constitutional.
• When a claimant is ineligible to have their claim referred to the RPD due to the STCA (IRPA, s. 101(1)(e)), the claimant would be returned to the U.S. without an assessment of the merits of their refugee claim in Canada.

Exclusions and Designated Regimes (IRPA S. 35(1)(B))

Key messages

• The Minister of Public Safety may designate certain foreign regimes, past or present, as having engaged in systematic or gross human rights violations, terrorism, genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity under s. 35(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
• Where the Canada Border Services Agency believes that an individual in Canada is or was a senior official of a designated regime, it may refer the matter to the IRB’s Immigration Division (ID) for an admissibility hearing.
• Referrals under s. 35(1)(b) constitute a small percentage (less than 0.3%) of the overall volume of admissibility proceedings conducted by the ID on a yearly basis.

If pressed:

• The ID recently received two public admissibility hearing referrals for alleged senior officials of the Iranian regime under s. 35(1)(b).
• In one case the person concerned was found to be inadmissible. In the other case, the Division’s decision remains pending.
• Information regarding private proceedings cannot be shared further to section 166 of the IRPA.

Background

• There are two parts of the analysis required for a determination under s. 35(1)(b):
  • Whether the Minister has designated a foreign regime under s. 35(1)(b); and
  • Whether the person concerned served in the designated regime as a prescribed senior official
• To designate a regime, the Minister must be of the opinion that a foreign government has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or one of the three enumerated offences under the CAHWCA. The Minister will also specify the time period to which the designation applies, as related to the period in which the proscribed offences took place.
• In the second part of the analysis, the ID must determine whether the person concerned was a prescribed senior official.
• Section 16 of the Regulations (IRPR) states that a prescribed senior official is a person who, by virtue of the position they hold or held, is or was able to exert significant influence on the exercise of government power or is or was able to benefit from their position.
• The regulation provides a non-exhaustive list of positions that qualify as senior officials:
  • heads of state or government;
  • members of the cabinet or governing council;
  • senior advisors to person described in paragraphs (a) or (b);
  • senior members of the public service;
  • senior members of the military and of the intelligence and internal security services;
  • ambassadors and senior diplomatic officials; and
  • members of the judiciary.
• Where a person held one of the above positions, that person is a prescribed senior official and is presumed to have been able to exert significant influence on the exercise of government power.  If not, the member then may consider whether the individual “was able to exercise significant influence on the regime’s actions or policies or was able to benefit from the position”.
• In deciding whether the person was sufficiently “senior”, a decision-maker can consider a variety of factors including whether their position placed them within the “top half” of the government or agency or organization hierarchy.
• A finding of inadmissibility under s. 35 results in the issuance of a deportation order.^{Note 4}
• Referrals under s. 35(1)(b) are a small % of admissibility proceedings conducted by the ID on a yearly basis.

Relationship to RPD Proceedings

• If a person concerned has made a claim for refugee protection but is then referred for an admissibility hearing, the claim is suspended, and it cannot be adjudicated by the RPD until the ID makes a final determination following an admissibility hearing.^{Note 5}
• If the ID finds the person concerned inadmissible, a deportation order is issued and the pending RPD claim is terminated.^{Note 6}
• Admissibility proceedings before the ID involving a pending refugee claimant must be held in private, in the absence of the public, by operation of law.^{Note 7}

Relationship to IAD Proceedings

• There is no right of appeal of the ID’s determination to the IAD if the person concerned is found inadmissible under s. 35(1)(b)^{Note 8} . The person concerned may file for leave and judicial review of the ID’s determination in Federal Court within 15 days.
• However, if the person concerned is not found inadmissible by the ID, the Minister has a right to appeal the ID’s favourable determination to the IAD. Subject to an order being made under s. 166 of the IRPA that the appeal should be held in the absence of the public, the proceeding will be conducted in public.
• The IAD decision may be contested to the Federal Court by applying for leave and judicial review.

Footnotes

IRPR, s. 229(1)((b)

Return to note 4 referrer

IRPA s. 103(1)(a)

Return to note 5 referrer

A finding of inadmissibility under s. 35 renders a refugee claim ineligible pursuant to IRPA, s. 101(1)(f)

Return to note 6 referrer

IRPA, s. 166(c.1)

Return to note 7 referrer

IRPA, s. 64(1)

Return to note 8 referrer

Refugee Protection Division - Fact Sheet

Key Messages

• Record high annual intake of more than 156,700 cases between April 2023 to March 2024, 97% more than during the previous 12-month period.
• 55,300 cases finalized between in fiscal year 2023-24, a 15% increase over the previous 12-month period.
• Between April 2023 to March 2024, 69% of claims finalized were approved and 17% were refused, with remaining claims being either withdrawn or abandoned.
• The rate of abandonments and withdrawals has remained stable for the last five years, between 10% to 14%.
• For the past five years, the approval rate at the RPD is on average 63%, with fluctuations over time due to country and type of claims received.

Key Statistics

• Status: As of March 31, 2024, approximately one-half of the current inventory of refugee claims were ‘non-actionable’ which means they cannot proceed to a hearing and finalization due to a pending security screening and / or other outstanding requirements. The volume of cases that were non-actionable represented 19 months of work.
• Counsel Representation: As of March 31, 2024, approximately 32,100 claims awaiting a hearing date were represented by counsel with a high volume of cases (i.e., over 150 actionable or scheduled principal cases). As of March 31, 2024, there are 42 High Volume Counsel.
• Age: 77% of pending claims were less than 1 year old (received between April 2023 and March 2024).
• 77% of cases were received in fiscal year 2023-24.
• 19% of cases were received in fiscal year 2022-23.
• 3% of cases were received in or prior to fiscal year 2021-22.
• Claimants’ location: 46% of claimants with a pending claim before the Board have reported an address in Quebec, 44% in Ontario, and 9.5% in the Western provinces. The remaining 0.5% are distributed in the Maritime provinces, territories, or have yet to provide their address.
• Average processing time for claims finalized in fiscal year 2023-2024 (the average age of claims at the time of their decision from referral) was 14 months.
• Projected wait time for new claims referred to the IRB as of March 2024 (the months of work the inventory represents at the Division’s current capacity of 60,000) was 37 months.
• The wait time attributable to non-actionable cases has risen significantly over the last three years from one month in October 2020 to 19 months as of March 31st, 2024.
• Wait time attributable to actionable cases was significantly reduced during the pandemic (from 18 to 4 months) but has since increased to represent 18 months of the total expected wait time of 37 months.

Supporting Data

a. Refugee Protection Division - Task Force on Less Complex Claims

Key Messages

• The Task Force on Less Complex Claims (Task Force) was established in January 2019 as a streamlined case management process to optimize the allocation of resources based on complexity of each claim.
• It allows for some claims to be granted a positive decision without a hearing, or to proceed with a short hearing if only one or two issues need to be resolved.
• It is guided by the principles of fairness, efficiency, and integrity.
• The Minister may intervene in any refugee claim, including a TLFCC claim.
• In fiscal year 2023-24, approximately 15,900 less complex claims were decided, or  29% of over 55,300 refugee claims decided over this period.
• The processing time for less complex claims in fiscal year 2023-24 was 9 months, compared with 14 months for other claims over the same period.

Background

Finalizations

• In fiscal year 2023-24, approximately 21,800 claims were streamed to the Task Force, with approximately 10,300 (47%) sent back for processing as part of the regular stream.
• In fiscal year 2023-24, the members of the Task Force finalized approximately 15,900 refugee claims, or 29% of the total 55,300 refugee claims decided:
  • 53% through the file review process (8,400 refugee claims);
  • 43% through a short or regular hearing (6,900 refugee claims); and,
  • 4% were abandoned, withdrawn, or otherwise concluded (600 refugee claims).

Acceptance rates in the Task Force are broken down as follows:

• Of the files that are processed by the Task Force:
• 100% of the files finalized through the file review process were accepted (as a general rule, no claims are refused without a hearing).
• Out of the 5,900 claims streamed for short hearings, 96% were accepted.
• The combined acceptance rate for less complex claims (both file review and short hearing) was 94%.

Criteria

• The RPD generally considers the following criteria when determining if a country or claim type is appropriate for the file-review process:
  • Countries or claim types that have an acceptance rate of 80% or higher.
  • Countries or claim types where identity is generally established by reliable documents.
  • Countries or claim types where the evidence is not ambiguous regarding the risk generally faced by claimants.
  • Countries or claim types where complex legal or factual issues do not often arise at the hearing.
    
• Many Task Force claims arise from conflict situations and changing country conditions. For example, the Task Force considers many claims from Afghanistan and Iran relating to political opinion, minority faith, and gender-based violence.
• The Task Force has met operational objectives related to the reduction of the claim inventory and average wait times, significantly contributing to the Board’s productivity objective, thereby enhancing access to justice for those appearing before it.

b. Refugee Protection Division - Scheduling

Key Messages

• For fairness, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) schedules older claims before newer claims (First In First Out).
• Exceptions to that include:
• Claims identified in Chairperson Guideline 6: Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding, including those involving unaccompanied minors, vulnerable persons, as well as detainees, for program integrity reasons.
• For efficiency, claims identified as less complex.
• RPD hearings are scheduled as virtual hearings by default.

Background

• Under the National Case Management approach, the RPD allocates claims throughout the country depending on the specialization of its members (e.g., country and claim type) and capacity.
• The RPD has implemented a balanced approach to scheduling that promotes the principles in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act including fairness (oldest cases); case processing efficiencies (less complex); and system integrity (interventions).
• Within this approach, the Division prioritizes certain claims to be scheduled and heard on a priority basis to ensure it is providing timely access to justice to those most vulnerable, such as:
  • Claims identified in Chairperson Guideline 6: Scheduling and Changing the Date or Time of a Proceeding, including those involving unaccompanied minors, detainees, and vulnerable persons; and
  • Other scheduling priorities designated by the Chairperson.
• The RPD is currently adjudicating cases that were referred, on average, at the end of 2022.
• Generally, about 70% of cases scheduled are oldest claims (First In First Out).
• The balance of cases scheduled in fiscal year 2023-24 comprised:
• 2% unaccompanied minors, detainees, and vulnerable persons
• 15% less complex claims
• 4% claims with in-person Ministerial Interventions, or 13% for all Ministerial Interventions (in-person and in writing)

c. Refugee Protection Division Inventory and Wait Times

Key Messages

• The average processing time for claims finalized in the 12-month period ending on April 1, 2024, was 14 months.
• The projected wait time for new claims referred to the IRB as of
  April 1, 2024, is 37 months.
• Over the 12-month period ending on April 1, 2024, the IRB received more than 156,700 new claims, which exceeded funded capacity. Of these, over 97,000 are not ready for a hearing as documentation is incomplete from the referring partner (IRCC or CBSA) or from the claimant. These delays add to increased processing times and contribute to wait time, representing 19 months of the 37 months total expected wait time for new claims.
• The IRB is funded to process 50,000 claims per year, and, on a temporary basis, to finalize an additional 7,500 claims in 2024-25. Through internal efficiencies, the Board will be seeking to finalize an additional 2,500 claims, bringing the total to 60,000 claims in 2024-25.
• Over the last few years, the IRB has transformed into a digital organization and increased its capacity to process more claims (55,300 claims decided in the 12-month period ending April 1, 2024).
• Moving forward, the IRB has developed and is implementing a new strategic plan (Horizon 2026-27) to ensure operations are streamlined and processes are simplified so that the Board is ready to address the growing needs and can process more claims faster.

Background

• The IRB’s funding was stabilized in Budget 2022 with the announcement of permanent funding of $150 million per year. In addition, the Government renewed its commitment to help the IRB respond to the high level of referrals through an additional, temporary top up investment of $87 million over two years, to finalize an additional 2,500 decisions in 2023-24 and 7,500 in 2024-25, or 10,000 over two years. This temporary investment is due to sunset at the end of the 2024-25 fiscal year.
• However, inventory is anticipated to continue to grow with increasing intake above funded levels. As of April 1st, 2024, the pending inventory composed of more than 186,800 claims, is an increase of 119%, or more than 101,000 claims over the past 12 months and double the previous historical peak of 93,000 claims in May 2020.
• The wait time attributable to non-actionable cases has risen significantly over the last three years from 1 month in October 2020 to 19 months as of April 1, 2024.
• To help mitigate a growing inventory, among other initiatives, the Board has increased its capacity to process more claims (55,300 claims decided in the
  12-month period ending April 1, 2024).
• Furthermore, the IRB is developing and implementing a new strategic plan, “Horizon 2026-27”, to ensure its operations are streamlined and its processes are simplified so that the Board is ready to address the growing needs. Appropriate use of technology, to automate routine and repetitive tasks, to receive and communicate information, or to make available general information, will be key in this endeavour.

d. Refugee Protection Division - Mexican Nationals

Key Messages

• Mexico has been the largest source country for the past 4 years.
• During the period when visas were lifted for Mexico (December 1, 2016 – February 29, 2024), the IRB has received 53,400 claims from Mexico.
• The visa requirement was reinstated on February 29, 2024. Although the March 2024 intake for claims from Mexico decreased by a third compared to the previous month, the impact of the visa reinstatement will be seen at asylum intake before it is seen at referrals to the Refugee Protection Division. It is still too early to assess the degree of impact that the reinstatement will have on referrals to the Board.
• As of April 1st, 2024, the IRB had 30,700 refugee claims from Mexico in its inventory.

Background

Note: The IRB’s statistics concerning refugee claims are based on first-named country of alleged persecution, not citizenship.

Refugee Appeal Division - Key Facts

Key Messages

• The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received 7,600 appeals in the 12-month period from April 2023 to March 2024, representing 83% of Refugee Protection Division (RPD) negative decisions. In this period, RAD finalized 9,800 appeals.
• Minister's appeals made up 2% of appeals received at the RAD (150 out of 7,600).
• 32% of the 9,800 appeals decided were allowed, while 66% were dismissed. The rate of abandonments and withdrawals remained stable for the last two years, at around 2%.
• Average processing time for appeals finalized in that period (the average age of appeals at the time of their decision) was 5 months.
• During the same period, the Federal Court granted approximately 432 applications for leave and overturned less than 2% of RAD decisions
• Appeals filed at the Federal Court in any given year may have been decided by the RAD in a previous year.
• In terms of Governor in Council appointments, member complement has increased slightly over the last two years to align with the anticipated demand in intake.

Key Statistics

Wait Times

• Average processing time for appeals finalized during the 12-month period from April 2023 to March 2024 (the average age of appeals at the time of their decision) was 5 months.
• Projected wait time for new appeals filed as of March 2024 (the months of work the inventory represents at the Division’s current capacity plus the expected wait time for the appeal to be perfected) is 3 months.

Inventory

• Scope: At the end of March 2024, the RAD inventory was comprised of 2,300 appeals, down 21% in 12 months and about 78% down from its peak of 10,400 in September 2019.
• Age: 94% of pending appeals were less than 1 year old (received between April of 2023 and March of 2024).
• Region: 58% of the inventory was in Central (Toronto) region, 26% was in Eastern (Montreal) region, and 16% was in Western (Vancouver) region.

Due to privacy considerations, some values in this table have been suppressed and replaced with the notation "--". As a result, components may not be a sum of the total indicated. In general, the IRB suppresses values less than 20.

Immigration Division - Key Facts

Key Messages

Globally:

• Immigration Division finalizations (11,300)
• slightly above intake (11,200) in 2023-2024 by 100 (1%).

Admissibility hearings in 2023-2024:

• 80% of admissibility hearings have been concluded within 5 months of the filing of the case. 13% of admissibility hearings have been concluded between 5 and 12 months of the filing of the case. Only 7% (less than 100) of admissibility hearings were concluded after more than 12 months.
• The projected wait time for new admissibility hearings as of
  March 2024 was 6 months.

Detention reviews in 2023-2024:

• 98% of more than 9,500 detention reviews were concluded within legislative requirements for all detention reviews (target of no less than 96%).
• Fewer than 50 persons were detained for 180 days or more.

Key Statistics

(ii) Intake, Finalizations and Inventory

a. Detention in Correctional Facilities

Key Messages

Conditions of detention

• The Canada Border Services Agency acts as a detaining authority, while the IRB holds no jurisdiction in determining where an immigration detainee is housed.
• The IRB’s role entails conducting detention reviews to determine whether detention should continue or if an individual should be released, subject to any conditions that are deemed necessary.
• Conditions of detention are a factor considered by the IRB when deciding whether to maintain or release an individual from detention. The IRB can order the release of a detainee on the grounds that the conditions of detention, on their own or in conjunction with other factors, are disproportionate.

Minors

• Detention of minors is regarded as a measure of last resort, with very few instances where a minor is detained and subject to detention review.
• For example, in the past four years (April 2020 to present), only two minors have been subjected to detention and review.
• The IRB holds no jurisdiction regarding minors housed with a family member in a detention facility but are not detained themselves.
• We are unable to provide information regarding any future plans at this time.

Designated Representatives

• A parent or family member may serve as a designated representative to an immigration detainee.
• The IRB holds authority to appoint designated representatives in cases where no family members were available or considered suitable.

Immigration Appeal Division - Key Facts

Key Messages

• Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) finalizations have surpassed or matched intake for the past five years.
• Average processing time for appeals finalized for the 12-month period from April 2023 to March 2024 was 7 months, and 6 months for sponsorship appeals specifically, whether the sponsorship appeal was in English or in French.
• Projected processing time for new appeals filed as of March 2024 is 9 months.
• For the 12-month period from April 2023 to March 2024, 34% of appeals decided were allowed, while 35% were dismissed.
• The decrease from the 39% acceptance rate in 2022-23 to 34% in 2023-24 was due to the increase in dismissals (from 30% to 35%) this past year.
• The abandonment and withdrawal rates remained stable year-over-year at 7% for abandonments and 24% for withdrawals for the past 2 years.
• In terms of Governor in Council (GIC) appointments, the complement has been stable year-over-year for the past 3 years with approximately 27 GIC members, providing the IAD sufficient capacity to meet expected intake. Future appointments will depend on member attrition and any increases in intake.

Key Statistics

(i) IAD Approval and Refusal Rates

(ii) Intake, Wait Times, and Inventory

(iii) Governor in Council Appointment and Reappointments

*Note: Due to limitations in IAD inventory during 2020-21, some IAD members were temporarily cross assigned to the RAD