Accepting Asylum Claims Without Hearings Raises Legal, Security, and Integrity Risks

January 29, 2026 – Since 2019, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) has accepted tens of thousands of asylum claims without holding an oral hearing through a paper-based process known as “File Review.” A new report from the C.D. Howe Institute argues that this policy raises serious legal, security, and governance concerns, may exceed the IRB’s authority, and risks undermining core safeguards in Canada’s asylum system.

In “Accepting Asylum Claims Without a Hearing: A Critique of IRB’s ‘File Review’ Policy,” lawyer James Yousif examines how File Review originated as a pilot during the 2017 Yeates Review, when structural reforms, including the possible dissolution of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), were under consideration. The policy was formally institutionalized in 2019. Introduced as an efficiency measure, the policy allows certain categories of claims – defined by nationality and claim type – to be accepted without questioning claimants or holding a hearing.

“Oral hearings are not a procedural formality,” says Yousif. “They are the primary mechanism for testing credibility and essential to detecting fraud and security risks. Accepting claims without ever questioning the claimant removes core safeguards built into Canada’s asylum system.”

The report argues that front-end security screening cannot replace in-person questioning at a hearing, which can reveal inconsistencies, misrepresentation, and inadmissibility concerns that may not be detectable through document review alone.

The report finds that File Review did not achieve its stated objective of reducing the asylum backlog. Despite substantial increases in IRB staffing, resources, and annual decision output between 2016 and 2024, the backlog expanded dramatically from roughly 17,000 claims to nearly 300,000. Over the same period, Canada’s overall asylum acceptance rate rose to approximately 80 percent, roughly double that of peer jurisdictions.

While global migration pressures, post-pandemic travel patterns, and other policy factors contributed to the surge in claims, the report cautions that maintaining a policy that permits rapid acceptance of claims without hearings may reinforce perceptions of speed, success, and reduced scrutiny – potentially increasing Canada’s attractiveness as an asylum destination.

The report notes that File Review was implemented by the IRB unilaterally using a Chairperson’s Instruction, a form of internal "soft law" typically used for tribunal operations, not for system-wide policy change. The report also raises concerns about adjudicative independence. It argues that File Review may improperly fetter the discretion of RPD adjudicators, delegate aspects of fact-finding functions to non-adjudicative staff, and impose a mandatory internal consultation process. These features, the report suggests, may be inconsistent with established principles of administrative law.

The report concludes that the File Review policy should be brought to an end and that the default requirement of oral hearings should be restored. While this would likely reduce short-term decision volumes, the author argues that a more rigorous adjudicative process would strengthen long-term system integrity, better protect genuine refugees, and help restore public confidence.

“Efficiency gains that rely on shortcuts may prove illusory,” says Yousif. “A policy that prioritizes speed over scrutiny risks reinforcing the very pressures it is meant to relieve.”

Read the Full Report

For more information, contact: Percy Sherwood, Associate Editor and Communications Officer, C.D. Howe Institute, 416-407-4798, psherwood@cdhowe.org.

The C.D. Howe Institute is an independent not-for-profit research institute whose mission is to raise living standards by fostering economically sound public policies. Widely considered to be Canada’s most influential think tank, the Institute is a trusted source of essential policy intelligence, distinguished by research that is nonpartisan, evidence-based and subject to definitive expert review.

Want more insights like this? Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest research and expert commentary.