Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Asylum System Reform): SOR/2026-218

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 160, Number 22

Registration
SOR/2026-218 October 23, 2026

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

P.C. 2026-1005 October 23, 2026

Whereas, under subsection 5‍(2)footnote a of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Actfootnote b, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has caused a copy of the proposed Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Asylum System Reform) to be laid before each House of Parliament;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Asylum System Reform) under subsections 5(1) and 6.1(3)footnote c, paragraphs 10.02(a)footnote d and 14(2)(b), sections 17, 32footnote e and 92footnote f and subsections 102(1) and 111.1(1)footnote g of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act footnote b.

Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Asylum System Reform)

Amendments

1 The portion of subsection 10(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations footnote 1 before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Form and content of application

10 (1) Subject to paragraphs 28(b) to (e) and 139(1)(b), an application under these Regulations must

2 Section 12.1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (k):

3 Paragraph 12.2(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

4 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 13.3:

DIVISION 7

Designated Representatives

Proceedings or applications

13.4 (1) For the purposes of subsection 6.1(1) of the Act, the Minister must designate a person to represent a person who is the subject of any of the following:

Circumstances of application

(2) However, subsection (1) applies only if the person who is the subject of the proceeding or application

Designated representatives — requirements

13.5 The Minister may designate a person under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act only if

Designated representative — responsibilities

13.6 (1) A representative designated under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act must

Legal counsel or other adviser

(2) If the representative determines that the represented person is not capable of retaining and instructing legal counsel or another adviser, the representative may retain and instruct legal counsel or another adviser on behalf of the represented person.

Decisions on behalf of represented person

(3) If the representative determines that the represented person is not capable of making decisions respecting the proceeding or application, the representative may make such decisions in consultation with the represented person’s legal counsel or another adviser, if applicable, and with the represented person to the extent possible.

List

13.7 (1) The Minister may establish a list of persons whom the Minister may designate as a representative in cases in which there is no other suitable person available.

Remuneration

(2) If the Minister designates a person on the list as a representative, the Minister must remunerate the person in accordance with the Remuneration Schedule for Designated Representatives, published by the Minister, as amended from time to time.

End of designation

13.8 (1) A designation made under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act continues until the represented person is no longer the subject of any proceeding or application referred to in paragraphs 13.4(1)(a) to (d) of these Regulations.

Exception

(2) However, a designation made under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act in respect of a person referred to in paragraph 13.4(2)(a) of these Regulations, and who is still the subject of any of the proceedings or applications referred to in paragraphs 13.4(1)(a) to (d) of these Regulations, ends when the person attains the age of 18 years — unless the person is unable, in the opinion of the Minister, to appreciate the nature of the proceeding or application — or when the person is accompanied by a parent or an adult who is legally responsible for them.

Revocation of designation by Minister

13.9 The Minister may revoke a designation made under subsection 6.1(1) of the Act if the Minister determines that

5 Section 28 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):

6 The portion of subsection 37(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

End of examination — claim for refugee protection

(2) The examination of a person who makes a claim for refugee protection inside Canada ends when the later of the following occurs:

7 Section 159 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Time limit — further consideration by Minister

159 (1) For the purposes of subsection 100(1) of the Act, the Minister must further consider the claim within 365 days after the day on which the Minister receives all documents and information specified by the Minister, and all documents and information required by the rules of the Board, under subsection 100(4) of the Act.

Operational limitations

(2) If the Minister cannot further consider the claim within the time limit set out in subsection (1) because of operational limitations, the Minister must further consider the claim as soon as feasible.

Non-application — submitting documents or providing information

159.001 (1) Paragraph 101(1)(b.1) of the Act does not apply to a claimant who, within one year after the day of their entry into Canada, submits any document or provides information in accordance with subsection 100(4) of the Act with a view to making a claim inside Canada.

Multiple entries

(2) If the claimant has entered Canada more than once after June 24, 2020, the one-year period referred to in subsection (1) begins on the day after the day of their first entry.

Non-application — minors

159.002 Paragraphs 101(1)(b.1) and (b.2) of the Act do not apply to a claimant who, at the time of making the claim, is under 18 years of age and does not have a parent, or an adult who is legally responsible for them, in Canada.

8 Subsection 159.4(1.1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Exception — land border other than ports of entry

(1.1) Unless a claimant establishes that any of paragraphs 159.5(a) to (h) of these Regulations applies to the claimant, paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act applies to them if they enter Canada at a location along the Canada–United States land border — including the waters along or across that border — that is not a port of entry and, less than 14 days after the day on which they enter Canada,

9 The portion of paragraph 159.5(c) of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

10 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 159.7:

Reinstatement of claim — application

159.71 (1) An application made under subsection 102.2(2) of the Act for reinstatement of a claim for refugee protection must explain why the claim should be reinstated.

Reinstatement of claim by Minister

(2) The Minister may reinstate the claim if the Minister determines that circumstances justifying the reinstatement exist.

Factors

(3) In determining whether circumstances justifying the reinstatement exist, the Minister must take into account whether the application for reinstatement was made in a timely manner and, if not, the reasons for the delay.

11 Sections 159.8 and 159.9 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Time limit

159.8 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person referred to in subsection 100(4) of the Act must provide the Minister with the documents and information specified by the Minister, and the documents and information required by the rules of the Board, under that subsection within 60 days after the day on which an officer determines under subsection 100(1) of the Act that the person’s claim is eligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division.

Extension — 30 days

(2) If the person requests, in the manner specified by the Minister, that the Minister extend the period to provide the documents and information before the end of the period, the Minister must extend the period by 30 days on a one-time basis.

Extension — fairness and natural justice

(3) The Minister may, on their own initiative, extend or pause the period for providing the documents and information for reasons of fairness and natural justice.

Claim Determined Not Abandoned

Requirements — subsection 102.1(4) of the Act

159.9 For the purposes of subsection 102.1(4) of the Act, the person who made the claim must, as the case may be,

12 Section 159.92 of the Regulations is repealed.

13 (1) Paragraph 206(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection 206(2) of the Regulations is repealed.

Coming into Force

14 These Regulations come into force on the first day on which section 31, subsections 43(1), (4) and (5), section 45 and subsections 51(1) to (4) of the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, chapter 4 of the Statutes of Canada, 2026, are all in force, but if they are registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: The In-Canada Asylum System is facing challenges due to increased volumes of refugee claims. The Strengthening Canada’s Immigration Systems and Borders Act included provisions designed to improve the efficiency of the In-Canada Asylum System. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC or the Department) has identified opportunities to further improve the efficiency of the In-Canada Asylum System through regulatory amendments, which are needed to operationalize the legislative amendments. These regulatory amendments address system-wide bottlenecks by simplifying and streamlining the claim process in support of quicker access to the asylum system, enhanced program integrity and faster processing of asylum claims. Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR or the Regulations) are needed to implement these efficiency improving measures.

Description: The Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Asylum System Reform) [the Amendments] address system-wide bottlenecks in the In-Canada Asylum System. The Amendments simplify and streamline the claim process by

  • introducing a single online application;
  • simplifying the online application process by specifying that required documents must be provided within set timelines;
  • introducing a time limit for Minister’s Due Diligence activities;
  • prescribing that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) can specify the time limit during which a person must provide required documents or information if the IRB determines that their claim has not been abandoned and prescribing the circumstances under which a withdrawn claim could be reinstated by the Minister;
  • setting out the circumstances in which a designated representative must be designated and outlining the responsibilities and requirements to be a designated representative;
  • ensuring that work permits may be issued to claimants when their claim is determined eligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board and they have submitted their complete application;
  • creating two exceptions to the new ineligibility provisions; and
  • repealing outdated regulatory provisions.

The Amendments would operationalize the legislative changes introduced as part of the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration Systems and Borders Act.

Rationale: The Amendments are expected to result in costs to the Government of Canada, estimated at $14.0 million in present value (PV) in 10 periods of 12 months. These costs consist of conducting administrative adjustments to existing asylum claim processes, operational and program guidance update activities, and information technology (IT system upgrades. These costs would be incurred by IRCC, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the IRB. The benefits of the Amendments consist of program efficiencies within the Government of Canada to address system-wide bottlenecks by simplifying and streamlining the claim process in support of quicker access to the asylum system, enhanced program integrity, faster processing of asylum claims and clearer and more efficient processes for asylum applicants.

Issues

Globally, the number of people forcibly displaced from their home countries due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing the public order continues to rise. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency’s Global Trends 2025 report, there were 41.6 million refugees at the end of 2025. In 2024, 4.8 million people sought international protection. Canada was the fourth-largest recipient of new individual asylum applications in 2024, up from fifth in 2023.

The In-Canada Asylum System has been strained in recent years as the number of claims increased, leading to lengthy processing times and backlogs. Although Budget 2024 increased the asylum system’s permanent funding by $159.5 million annually to support the stability and integrity of Canada’s asylum system, increasing processing and decision-making capacity, asylum system funding remains insufficient to process the number of claims received each year, including approximately 144 000 claims in 2023, 173 000 claims in 2024, and 115 000 claims in 2025. This is an increase from approximately 64 000 claims in 2019.

The inventory of asylum claimants awaiting a decision by the IRB rose from around 70 000 at the end of 2022 to nearly 300 000 at the end of 2025. Lengthy processing times impede Canada’s ability to provide timely protection to those who need it, make the removal of failed refugee claimants harder, and result in prolonged uncertainty for claimants.

To help address this backlog and improve the efficiency of the In-Canada Asylum System, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act (the Amending Act) was introduced to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The Amending Act received royal assent on March 26, 2026. Amendments to the IRPR are needed to complement and implement these legislative amendments. This includes amendments to

Regulatory amendments are needed to operationalize the legislative amendments.

Background

Canada is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, and the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Canada protects individuals at risk of persecution through two programs. The Refugee Resettlement Program provides protection to people who are outside Canada. Resettlement targets are set out in the immigration levels plans (currently targeting an intake of 168 050 refugees between 2025 and 2027). Canada works with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and international partners to establish the annual target, allowing the government to plan for their arrival and integration. The In-Canada Asylum System provides protection to individuals (i.e. asylum seekers) who are in Canada and have a well-founded fear of persecution or risk torture, their lives or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment upon removal from Canada. Canada is required to process every claim it receives. Therefore, it is challenging to anticipate the number of asylum claims that will be received each year. These Amendments relate to the In-Canada Asylum System.

In 2019, the Office of the Auditor General’s Report on the “Processing of Asylum Claims” found that Canada’s refugee determination system was not equipped to process claims according to the required timelines. Despite reforms introduced in 2012 to speed up decision making, the report found that the system was again faced with a significant backlog of unresolved claims. The report found that, since the system was not flexible enough to respond in a timely way to higher claim volumes, the 2017 surge of asylum seekers led to a backlog and increased wait times for refugee protection decisions. It also found that a series of inefficiencies contributed to delays in processing claims. The report found that there were significant gaps in information sharing and duplication of effort among the three main organizations involved in the claims process: the CBSA, IRCC and the IRB. For example, these organizations used different information technology systems, with limited interoperability. The report found that although the organizations shared some information electronically, they still relied on paper and faxes to share specific claim information. Finally, the report found that hearings for almost two thirds of claims were postponed. Most of the postponements were due to issues that were within the Government’s control and resulted in delays of several months.

IRCC’s 2023–2024 Departmental Plan indicates that “following investments made in Budget 2022, IRCC will continue to advance reforms to strengthen the asylum system, enhance efficiencies and meet Canada’s international obligations. This includes working closely with the CBSA, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the IRB to implement strategies to streamline asylum processing, ensure that decision-makers have all relevant information in a timely manner, and maintain the integrity of the system.” Budget 2022 provided $1.3 billion over five years, and $331.2 million annually, to increase the capacity of the In-Canada Asylum System.

Budget 2024 provided increased funding to IRCC, the CBSA and the IRB to support the stability and integrity of the asylum system. Budget 2024 provided $743.5 million over five years, including $159.5 million ongoing, to support the stability and integrity of the asylum system, increasing processing and decision-making capacity.

While new funding has increased the capacity of the asylum system, legislative amendments to the IRPA to simplify and streamline the claims process, along with corresponding regulatory amendments to the IRPR, are expected to support faster decisions and quicker removals.

As part of the IRCC Red Tape Review, the Department highlighted the potential for asylum reform to contribute to the Department’s red tape reduction efforts.

IRCC has identified the need to reform the following parts of the asylum system through regulatory amendments to address efficiencies for both claimants and the processing system.

Single online application

Previously, claimants had to complete multiple documents as part of their application for refugee protection. Claimants were requested to provide basic information, including tombstone data, repeatedly across the documents. This duplication of administrative tasks placed an unnecessary burden on claimants. Moreover, previous time limits varied depending on whether the claim was made at a port of entry or at an inland office, resulting in two separate timelines based on where claimants applied for refugee protection, increasing the risk of confusion for claimants and their counsel. The Amending Act provides that a person who makes a claim for refugee protection must submit documents and information to the Minister in the time limits and manner prescribed by the Minister. Regulatory amendments are needed to operationalize these legislative changes.

Minister’s Due Diligence

Minister’s Due Diligence refers to activities undertaken by IRCC and the CBSA to identify issues related to program integrity, credibility, misrepresentation, criminality and inadmissibility to uphold the integrity of the In-Canada Asylum System. Previously, this step took place after an eligible claim was referred to the IRB, which has a mandate to adjudicate refugee claims. In recognition of the importance of ensuring that individuals who might pose a risk to Canada are not granted refugee protection, the IRB generally does not hear or render decisions on claims without the completion of security screening conducted by Public Safety Canada but does not always wait for the Minister’s Due Diligence activities to be complete. Minister’s Due Diligence activities cannot conclude without a security screening recommendation from Public Safety Canada.

As the IRB waits for security screening to be complete, an inventory of non-actionable claims has been created at the IRB. While the IRB observed a wait period for security screening, there were no legislative or regulatory restrictions to require the IRB to wait for the ministers to complete their due diligence before rendering a decision. After referral to the IRB, the IRB was able to schedule hearings for claims for which security screening or Minister’s Due Diligence activities were not yet completed. While security and credibility concerns are addressed at the hearing at the IRB, insufficient time for the Minister to complete Minister’s Due Diligence activities before a hearing is scheduled could impact the outcome of the hearing and jeopardize the integrity of the program. If the IRB schedules hearings before security screening or Minister’s Due Diligence activities have been completed, this causes procedural inefficiencies (e.g. increased need for tracking of claims and rescheduling hearings). As well, the potential for the IRB to proceed with rendering a decision before the ministers have completed their due diligence activities could have caused integrity and credibility concerns. Following royal assent of the Amending Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides ministers with the authority to establish a time limit to conduct Ministerial Due Diligence activities in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before referral of the claim to the IRB. When a claim is referred to the IRB, the IRB will receive relevant documents, will be aware prior to scheduling a hearing whether the Minister has concerns and will be a party to the claim, and can schedule a hearing with a better understanding of the Minister’s intent to participate. Furthermore, the Minister will be granted the opportunity to review claims and identify credibility, program integrity or security concerns in advance of scheduling a hearing, which will support the overall integrity of the asylum system. Regulatory amendments are required to operationalize changes in the legislation.

Abandonment/reinstatement of withdrawn claims

The IRB has the authority to determine that an eligible claim that has been referred to it has been abandoned if a claimant fails to submit the required documentation for the purpose of making a claim or does not appear at their hearing without a valid reason. Changes to the legislation will now require documentation for the purpose of making a claim to be submitted to the Minister, rather than to the IRB, and will specify that the Minister will complete due diligence activities prior to referring a claim to the IRB. Since incomplete applications will not be referred to the IRB, this may result in a number of incomplete applications sitting idle in the system before referral to the IRB. Changes were made through the Amending Act to provide for the transmittal of incomplete claims or claims where the claimant has failed to appear for their examination to the IRB for an abandonment determination. These changes allow the IRB to consider a claimant’s circumstances before deciding whether the claim should be abandoned.

Furthermore, the IRB may currently allow a refugee claimant whose claim has been referred to withdraw their claim. Changes to withdrawal were made through the Amending Act to ensure that claimants that wish to withdraw their claim prior to referral to the IRB may do so by applying to the Minister to withdraw their claim. Regulatory amendments are needed to operationalize these legislative changes.

Designated representatives for persons unable to appreciate the nature of proceedings

A designated representative is someone who represents a person during certain IRCC and CBSA proceedings to ensure that the interests of the person (i.e. persons under 18 years of age or a person that cannot appreciate the nature of the proceedings, e.g. an adult that lacks the requisite capacity to fully understand the nature of the proceedings) are protected. A designated representative is usually a parent, family member, or friend. When there is no one that meets that criterion, a contracted designated representative is appointed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Designated representatives are important supports during proceedings and without them, certain IRCC and CBSA proceedings would be delayed until a designated representative could be appointed for persons under 18 years of age and those unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings. The Amending Act clarified the existing authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to appoint designated representatives and makes the appointment of a designated representative a requirement, in certain circumstances. Regulatory amendments are needed to operationalize these legislative changes.

Work permits

A Temporary Public Policy was in place to accelerate the issuance of work permits for refugee claimants by allowing work permits to be issued as soon as their claim is determined eligible to be referred to the IRB and the refugee claimant has met all requirements, including completing their immigration medical examination. Work permit issuance at the earliest opportunity allows refugee claimants to access employment and support themselves financially. As this public policy was temporary, it needed to be made permanent in regulations.

Exceptions to the new ineligibility provisions

When making a refugee claim, claimants must demonstrate that their claim is eligible to be referred to the IRB. Two new provisions were introduced in the Amending Act that make certain asylum claims ineligible to be referred to the IRB. The first ineligibility provision applies to claims made more than one year after the claimant’s first entry to Canada (after June 24, 2020), and the second ineligibility provision applies to claims made by those who enter Canada irregularly from the United States and make a claim 14 or more days later. The Amending Act provides the Governor in Council with the authority to create exceptions to these two new ineligibility provisions. Regulatory amendments are needed to create an exception for unaccompanied minors from both ineligibility provisions given their lack of legal guardianship. Amendments to the Regulations are also needed to create another exception from the one-year ineligibility provision for those who submit documents and information in view of making a claim within one year of their first entry to Canada (after June 24, 2020). This exception harmonizes the one-year ineligibility with changes to the asylum system that were introduced as part of the Amending Act, namely the new requirement for claimants to submit documents and information to the Minister before a claim is made in person to an officer. The exception would ensure that those who submit documents and information in view of making a claim before meeting with an officer are not subject to the one-year ineligibility only because they have not yet met with an officer.

Application of the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement and its Additional Protocol

The Canada-United States (U.S.) Safe Third Country Agreement is an agreement between Canada and the United States that provides that refugee claimants are to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in (either the United States or Canada), unless they are exempt from it or qualify for an exception to the Agreement. The new timeline for the Minister’s Due Diligence activities will separate eligibility determination and referral to the IRB, which could create new delays for a head of family who wishes to act as an anchor relative to family members arriving with them, resulting in family separation. Amendments to the Regulations are needed to clarify that individuals who are 18 years or older in Canada with claims determined eligible for referral to the IRB (as opposed to having been referred to the IRB) are considered an eligible family member for the purposes of meeting the family member exception under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. This would maintain the status quo for how the Safe Third Country Agreement and its Additional Protocol are applied.

Secondly, in combination with a Temporary Public Policy that exempts prospective refugee claimants, in Canada, from the requirement to make a claim to an officer in person, the Additional Protocol is applied when the Government of Canada first becomes aware of an individual’s request for refugee protection, i.e. when an individual submits a complete application online. However, as there are two parts to the application for refugee protection under asylum reform, Amendments to the Regulations maintain the status quo for how the Additional Protocol is applied by continuing to apply the 14-day timeline from the first time the Government of Canada is aware of an individual’s request for refugee protection, which, under asylum reform, is when an individual submits their documents or information online with a view to making a claim.

Transfer of scheduling authorities to the IRB and repeal of regulated time limits

The Regulations require IRCC and CBSA referring officers to schedule refugee protection hearings. However, in practice, the IRB has been scheduling refugee protection hearings since 2018, as it became untenable to have hearing dates scheduled by referring officers within the regulated timelines due to record high refugee claim volumes and long wait times. Formally transferring authority to schedule hearings to the IRB aligns with existing practice. Secondly, there was previously a regulatory requirement for officers to fix the date and time of hearings within specified time limits and for decisions to be made within specified time limits. Repealing this specific regulated time limit allows for increased flexibility to ensure hearing schedules are more responsive to changes in claim volumes.

Repeal of Designated Country of Origin regime

The Government publicly announced its intent to formally repeal the Designated Country of Origin regime in May 2019, following the de-designation of all countries, which ended its practical application. Despite this change, the Designated Country of Origin regime is still referenced in the regulations, leading to confusion.

Objective

The objectives of the Amendments are to address bottlenecks and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the asylum system in the face of high asylum claim volumes while maintaining fairness and compassion and to operationalize legislative changes.

Description

The Amendments reduce duplication by simplifying the online application process, establish a time limit for the Minister’s Due Diligence activities, prescribe requirements regarding abandonment of claims or reinstatement of withdrawn claims, set when designated representatives must be appointed, provide quicker access to work permits for asylum seekers, and create two exceptions to the new ineligibility provisions.

Single online application

The Amendments introduce a 60-calendar-day time limit for applicants to submit a complete application after making a claim and a one-time extension of the time limit of 30 calendar days. The Amendments also allow the Minister to extend this time limit for reasons of fairness (for example a system outage).

Minister’s Due Diligence

The Amendments introduce a time limit of 365 days during which the ministers must conduct Minister’s Due Diligence activities (i.e. triage and review for criminality, exclusion, credibility, and program integrity concerns and identify possible ministerial intervention before the IRB) before claims, accompanied by a “Minister’s Referral Package,” are referred to the IRB for adjudication. The Amendments also provide for an exception to the time limit for reasons of operational limitations.

Abandonment/reinstatement of withdrawn claims

In the circumstances where the Minister transmits a claim to the IRB for an abandonment determination, and the IRB determines the claim has not been abandoned, the Amendments prescribe that the IRB can specify the time limits during which a person must provide the required documents and information; or that the person must appear for their examination on a date fixed by an officer. The Amendments also prescribe the circumstances under which a claim withdrawn before referral to the IRB could be reinstated by the Minister, and the requirements to be met when submitting a reinstatement application.

Designated representatives for persons unable to appreciate the nature of proceedings

In accordance with the new legislative provisions, the Amendments set out the circumstances in which a designated representative must be designated; the responsibilities of the designated representative; the requirements to be a designated representative; how designated representatives will be remunerated; the circumstances to end the designation for minors that reach 18 years of age if they are able to understand the nature of the proceedings; and the circumstances for termination of the designation if the designated representative is no longer required.

Work permits

The Amendments ensure that work permits may be issued to claimants as soon as their claim is determined eligible to be referred to the IRB, provided that the claimant has met all requirements, including submitting the information and documents required by the Minister and completing the immigration medical examination, rather than when their claim is actually referred.

Exceptions to the new ineligibility provisions

The Amendments create two exceptions to the new ineligibilities created under the Amending Act. The first exception applies to unaccompanied minors whose claims are subject to either ineligibility. The second exception applies to those whose claims are subject to the one-year ineligibility and who submit documents and information in view of making a claim within one year of their first entry (after June 24, 2020). As part of asylum reform changes, claimants will be required to submit certain documents and information prior to meeting in person to make their claim. Since there may be a delay for the in-person meeting to occur, this exception ensures that those who begin the claim process within one year but who have not yet met with an officer to make their claim in person do not have their claims found ineligible pursuant to the one-year ineligibility.

Application of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement and its Additional Protocol

The Amendments clarify that individuals who are 18 years or older in Canada with claims determined eligible for referral to the IRB (as opposed to having been referred to the IRB) are considered an eligible family member for the purposes of meeting the family member exception under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. Separately, the Amendments also clarify that the 14-day count in the Additional Protocol to the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement applies to claimants that either make a claim for refugee protection or submit documents with a view to making a claim within 14 days of irregular entry into Canada.

Transfer of scheduling authorities to the IRB and repeal of regulated time limits

The Amendments remove the requirement for officers to set the date of refugee hearings at the IRB and would repeal the time limits for hearings to be scheduled and decisions to be made.

Repeal of Designated Country of Origin regime

The Amendments repeal the regulatory provisions related to the Designated Country of Origin regime, which have not been in effect since the de-designation of all Designated Country of Origin countries in 2019 and align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Starting in 2023, IRCC consulted with other government departments and agencies, including the CBSA, and the IRB, as the In-Canada Asylum System is jointly administered by IRCC, the CBSA and the IRB. Consultations identified the need to address system-wide bottlenecks through system efficiencies. IRCC, the CBSA and the IRB determined that a light touch registration process for all claimants was needed to ensure quicker access to the asylum system.

IRCC held meetings with stakeholders, including the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to address specific questions about the legislative amendments and the potential regulatory amendments. Stakeholders expressed concerns that claims could be stalled at the Minister’s Due Diligence stage if there was no time limit to complete the Minister’s Due Diligence. To address this concern, a time limit for Minister’s Due Diligence activities is introduced as part of the Amendments to ensure that Minister’s Due Diligence work will be completed within a standard period. Stakeholders were also concerned that applicants may require additional time to complete their single online asylum application. Based on the feedback received, the Amendments extend the time allotted to complete an application after making an asylum claim from 45 calendar days (for port-of-entry claims) to 60 calendar days (for all claims) and allow the claimant to request a one-time extension of 30 calendar days to submit their asylum application if they are unable to comply with the 60-day time limit to submit their asylum application.

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The proposed Amendments were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on June 20, 2026, for a 30-day consultation period. During this time, 87 comments were received from 47 individuals and organizations, including several refugee and immigration lawyers, refugee stakeholder organizations and legal organizations. Some comments were supportive, while others raised concerns about the regulatory Amendments. The most frequent concerns that stakeholders raised were requesting additional exceptions to the ineligibility provisions, concerns about the timeline for single online application, and concerns about the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment process. All comments received were considered, and while no substantive changes were made, the Department made minor wording clarifications to the Regulations.

A thematic summary of the comments received, and the Department’s response are outlined below.

Single online application

Comment: Several comments from refugee stakeholder organizations, legal organizations, and individuals raised concerns about the length of the time limit to complete an online application, notably that the length of the time was not sufficient for claimants.

IRCC Response: The time limit seeks to balance fairness considerations with an interest in being able to advance claims through the system as quickly as possible.

Claimants previously had a time limit of 45 days for claims made at a port of entry. The new 60-day time limit applies to both port of entry and inland claimants, creating a more consistent process regardless of where a claim is made. It will also provide additional time for claimants making a claim at a port of entry compared to the previous time limit of 45 days for port of entry claimants. If the claimant does not comply within the prescribed timelines, their claim will be transmitted to the IRB for an abandonment proceeding; at that point, the IRB may grant them another extension to comply. In addition to this, while there will be a single online application for all claims, paper-based application forms will continue to be available upon request.

Comment: Several comments were received from refugee stakeholder organizations requesting further information about what documents and information are required to initiate an asylum claim.

IRCC Comment: An application guide will be available online to help claimants understand what information and documents they need to provide to submit a complete application. Prospective claimants already in Canada (inland claimants) will first be requested to complete and submit an online questionnaire, which will serve as an indication of the applicant’s intent to make a claim. Prospective inland claimants will then be invited to an in-person appointment at a local office where they will meet with an officer and make their claim per subsection 99(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. At ports of entry, individuals will be able to make their claim immediately upon meeting with an officer.

Claimants will have to submit their completed application within 60 calendar days after the day on which an officer determines that the person’s claim is eligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB.

Minister’s Due Diligence

Comment: Several comments from refugee stakeholder organizations, legal organizations, and individuals raised concerns that the 365-day time limit to conduct Minister’s Due Diligence activities was too long and left pending claimants uncertain as to when their claim would be referred to the IRB. Stakeholders suggested a much shorter timeline of four to six months.

Response: Minister’s Due Diligence includes activities undertaken by IRCC and the CBSA to identify issues related to program integrity, credibility, misrepresentation, criminality, and inadmissibility. The Government of Canada has committed that all persons making a refugee claim in Canada would receive front-end security screening before refugee protection is granted. Referring claims to the IRB prior to the completion of Minister’s Due Diligence activities has not proven to be efficient, as claims may accumulate in the IRB’s inventory while waiting for security screening and other Minister’s Due Diligence activities to be completed. Under the Amendments, it is expected that Minister’s Due Diligence will be completed within the prescribed 365-day time limit or sooner. A shorter regulatory time limit would not provide sufficient opportunity for the Minister to complete all of the Minister’s Due Diligence activities, including security screening for some of the more complex cases. In the absence of adequate time at the outset, extensions would likely be required in a significant number of cases, creating uncertainty and undermining the objective of establishing a clear timeline. Providing the IRB with complete files is necessary to make the process more efficient and maintain the integrity of Canada’s asylum system. Moreover, less frequent use of extensions will make it easier for claimants to anticipate when their claims are referred to the IRB following the completion of Minister’s Due Diligence. For these reasons, the 365-day time limit will be maintained.

Comment: Comments from refugee stakeholder organizations and legal organizations were received regarding including the operational limitations clause for Minister’s Due Diligence; specifically, about how the operational limitation clause would be used, as the clause is broad.

Response: The operational limitation clause is not intended to extend the time required for the Minister’s Due Diligence for specific cases. The clause is reserved for unforeseen circumstances that are outside of the Minister’s control, such as a system-wide IT outage impacting a large volume of pending claims. Giving the Minister sufficient time to conduct Minister’s Due Diligence upfront will help ensure that claims are not referred until all Minister’s Due Diligence activities are completed, allowing the IRB to receive scheduling-ready claims.

Abandonment/Reinstatement of withdrawn claims

Comment: A comment from a legal organization was received seeking clarification on the threshold that would trigger the abandonment provision.

Response: Operational guidance will establish consistent standards for what missing information is required before the Minister must transmit the claim to the IRB for abandonment proceedings.

Comment: Comments were received from refugee stakeholder organizations, legal organizations, and individuals regarding the reinstatement of withdrawn claims, suggesting that the Regulations more specifically identify circumstances that support reinstatement or that the Minister uses the same test as the IRB when reinstating withdrawn claims.

Response: Regulations are worded broadly to provide discretion for the Minister to consider a variety of circumstances when deciding whether a claim should be reinstated. The Minister’s discretion also provides flexibility for the claimant, as the Minister can consider a variety of circumstances. The Minister can only rely on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations in determining reinstatement of a claim and cannot rely on the Refugee Protection Division Rules. However, the intention is to generally reflect the Refugee Protection Division’s approach to the reinstatement of withdrawn claims. Program delivery instructions and guidelines to officers have been provided to that effect.

Designated representatives for persons unable to appreciate the nature of proceedings

Comment: Comments were received from refugee stakeholder organizations, legal organizations and individuals regarding designated representatives making legal decisions on behalf of the individual they have been appointed to represent. Some comments were critical of allowing the use of substitute decision making and would have preferred to limit decision-making capabilities to supportive decision making.

Response: Designated representatives are expected to act in the best interests of the individual at all times and only make decisions that benefit the individual. Both substitute and supportive decision making are necessary in certain circumstances and, therefore, both are included in the Regulations. While supportive decision making should be the default approach for designated representatives, substitute decision making is required in certain circumstances, including when the person is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings and, due to the nature and severity of their impairment, will be unable to participate in making decisions now or in the future (e.g. degenerative neurological diseases), or for persons under 18 years of age.

Comment: Some comments were received from refugee stakeholder organizations and individuals about appointing designated representatives earlier in the claim process.

Response: While these Regulations do not address this concern, IRCC recognizes the considerations raised and will consider potential approaches to address these comments, in consultation with stakeholders, in the coming months.

Note: IRCC made minor changes to the wording of the Regulations to clarify the meaning of clause 13.4 (1) d.

Work permits

Comment: Comments were received from refugee stakeholder organizations and individuals about the length of time claimants would have to wait before having access to an open work permit and some suggested including a time limit to make an eligibility determination to facilitate earlier issuance of the work permits.

Response: The Regulations allow work permits to be issued at an earlier point in time than the previous Regulations, i.e. at the time of the eligibility decision instead of referral of the claim to the IRB. Similarly, the previous Temporary Public Policy that was in place allowed for a work permit to be issued at the time of eligibility. In addition to having a claim determined eligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division, there are requirements to be met by the claimant for a work permit to be issued (medical examination and asylum claim application completed). Once all the requirements are met, the work permit is usually issued within less than a month.

Exceptions to the new ineligibility provisions

Comment: Several comments from refugee stakeholder organizations, legal organizations and individuals suggested additional exceptions to the new ineligibility provisions. Respondents generally advocated for the inclusion of additional exceptions for: 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals who experience disproportionate levels of poverty, precarity and homelessness; individuals whose removal orders are stayed as a result of an Administrative Deferral of Removal or a Temporary Suspension of Removal measure; victims of gender-based violence; minor children; and for exceptional circumstances.

Response: It was determined that further exceptions were not necessary, since the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment process is a robust mechanism for assessing applications for protection made by eligible persons to ensure they are not sent back to situations of risk.

Subject to certain exceptions for those inadmissible on serious grounds, a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment assesses risk on the same grounds as those examined by the IRB when making a determination on a refugee claim (i.e. a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, or a danger of torture or a risk to their life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment), and if a person is found to be at risk, they would be granted protected person status and would be eligible to apply for permanent residence. Additionally, individuals subject to removal to a country with an Administrative Deferral of Removal or a Temporary Suspension of Removal are not at risk of being returned to a country where they could face risks. They would also have access to a work permit and Interim Federal Health Program coverage during this period. These groups are not currently exempt from existing asylum ineligibility provisions.

Pre-Removal Risk Assessment

Comments: Some comments from refugee stakeholder organizations and individuals regarding the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment process were received. Comments raised concerns about whether the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment process upholds the legal rights of claimants to a full hearing, concerns regarding a full appeal, and concerns regarding a stay of removal order pending appeal.

Response: The Amendments did not include any regulatory changes to the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment process. The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment is a risk assessment mechanism that is triggered once a person has been ordered to be removed from Canada. It is a program that provides an opportunity for persons facing removal to seek protection from the risk and danger they may face if removed. This program ensures Canada’s adherence to the principle of non-refoulement. Eligibility for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment is determined by the CBSA when the person is considered “removal-ready.” As stated previously, individuals subject to removal to a country with an administrative deferral of removal or a temporary suspension of removal are not at risk of being returned to a country where they could face risks. They would also have access to a work permit and Interim Federal Health Program coverage during this period.

In addition, the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment process requires an oral hearing if the evidence raises a serious issue of the applicant’s credibility, it is central to the decision on whether protection should be granted, and, if accepted, the evidence would justify allowing the application for protection. A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment also ensures procedural fairness and, in the event of an alleged breach of procedural fairness, applicants may seek leave and judicial review before the Federal Court. As well, persons with a pending application for leave or judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment decision may bring a motion for a judicial stay of removal, which is then reviewed and decided by the Federal Court. If granted, the individual’s removal is stayed while the underlying application for leave and judicial review is determined by the Federal Court. They could also seek a deferral of removal from the CBSA.

Application of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement and its Additional Protocol

Comment: Some comments from refugee stakeholder organizations and legal organizations were critical of the United States being designated as a safe country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

Response: The Amendments did not include any regulatory changes to the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. The Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, and its Additional Protocol, remain important tools for the orderly management of asylum claims made along our shared land border. Canada uses a robust framework to continuously monitor developments in the United States and the impact that changes in policies and practices may have on its refugee protection system.

Legislation

Comment: Several comments from refugee stakeholder organizations, legal organizations and individuals expressed concerns regarding the legislative amendments.

Response: The legislation has received royal assent after being debated and voted on in Parliament and the Senate. Therefore, these comments are out of the scope of the Amendments to the Regulations.

Additional comments

Comment: Some commenters requested that the program delivery instructions be made public.

Response: IRCC program delivery instructions are published online. The Department will also develop public facing materials outlining the changes.

Comment: Some comments expressed concerns regarding the gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) and suggested updating it to include the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Response: In light of the comments, IRCC has revised the GBA+ of the RIAS to address the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, noting the Government of Canada’s commitment to upholding and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, including by implementing policies and programs that address individual needs and circumstances.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

As required by the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an assessment of modern treaty implications was conducted on the proposal. The assessment examined the geographical scope and subject matter of the regulatory amendments in relation to modern treaties in effect and did not identify any modern treaty implications or obligations. The Amendments aim to address system-wide bottlenecks by simplifying and streamlining the claim process in support of enhanced program integrity and faster processing of asylum claims. Therefore, they are not tied to a specific geographic location, including jurisdictions with a modern treaty or self-government agreement. In addition, this initiative does not include aspects that could intersect with any modern treaties. Therefore, this initiative would not impact the ability of Indigenous communities to self-govern, nor will it impact the existing land claims or treaty rights of Indigenous groups.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The costs and benefits of the Amendments are monetized for 10 periods of 12 months (2026 to 2035) and are expressed in 2025 dollars. The Amendments come into force on the day on which section 31 of the Amending Act comes into force, but if registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered.

External stakeholders were not consulted on the development of the cost-benefit analysis, as the Amendments concern asylum system changes required to operationalize recent legislative amendments However, IRCC engaged in targeted discussions with key stakeholders, including the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to address specific questions and concerns related to legislative amendments and potential regulatory amendments. Stakeholders were also provided an opportunity to comment on the cost-benefit analysis when the proposed Amendments were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I. No comments were received concerning the Cost-Benefit Analysis. Furthermore, no substantial amendments were made to the prepublished proposed Amendments. Accordingly, the methodology and estimates presented in this Cost-Benefit Analysis remain unchanged from those published in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

For further details regarding the methodology, a detailed cost-benefit analysis report is available upon request at the following email address: IRCC.AsylumReformRegs-Reformedasileregs.IRCC@cic.gc.ca.

Baseline scenario and regulatory scenario

An important first step in developing a cost-benefit methodology is establishing a baseline scenario against which options may be measured. For this analysis, the baseline scenario is one where changes to the asylum system would be made through legislative amendments, and no regulatory changes would be made. The baseline scenario is then compared with the regulatory scenario, in which regulatory amendments would prescribe specific requirements, conditions and circumstances to operationalize the recent legislative amendments made to the asylum system.

Single online application

The Amendments ensure that claimants are subject to the same time limits whether they make their claim inland or at a port of entry. The legislative amendments (the baseline scenario) specify that the information and documents for both port of entry and inland applicants must be provided to the Minister. Inland, claimants first must answer preliminary questions online, then meet with an officer in person to make their claim followed by the determination of eligibility and later submit their completed application online. At ports of entry, claimants answer preliminary questions and make their claim and later submit their application online. In the baseline scenario, there is no time limit to submit a complete online application, as the time limits are to be provided for in regulations. The Amendments introduce a time limit of 60 calendar days for the submission of a complete application after a claim has been made. Claimants will have the ability to request a one-time extension of 30 calendar days to submit their asylum application if they are unable to comply with the 60-day time limit to submit their asylum application.

Minister’s Due Diligence

Legislative amendments (the baseline scenario) require the Minister’s Due Diligence activities to be conducted within a prescribed time limit. The Amendments prescribe a time limit of 365 days for IRCC and the CBSA to identify issues related to program integrity, credibility, misrepresentation, criminality and inadmissibility. This ensures that claims referred to the IRB are ready for determination/adjudication and hearings can be efficiently scheduled.

Abandonment/reinstatement of withdrawn claims

The legislative amendments introduce circumstances when the Minister would transmit a claim for abandonment determination to the IRB; the IRB would then make such a determination following the steps listed in the legislative amendments (baseline scenario). The Amendments allow officers and the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB to set time limits for a person to meet legislative requirements (i.e. to provide missing information or appear for examination) if the IRB does not determine that their claim is abandoned.

In the baseline scenario, the legislative amendments introduce an authority for the Minister to process a claim withdrawal prior to referral to the IRB. The legislative amendments also introduce an authority for the Minister, subject to regulations, to reinstate a claim that was determined to be withdrawn. The Amendments prescribe the circumstances that would be considered by the Minister to allow the reinstatement of a claim, and the requirements that the applicant must fulfill when applying for the reinstatement of a claim.

Designated representatives for persons unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings

New legislative provisions (baseline scenario) clarify the existing authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to appoint designated representatives in certain circumstances. Regulations are required to operationalize the legislation. The Amendments clarify the circumstances in which a designated representative must be appointed by the Minister for persons who are unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings and for persons under 18 years of age and outline the responsibilities and requirements to be a designated representative.

Work permits

In the baseline scenario, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations require that claimants may only be issued a work permit after their claim has been referred to the IRB. Since 2022, a Temporary Public Policy has exempted certain claimants from this regulatory requirement, recognizing the importance of ensuring that claimants can support themselves financially while they await the referral of their refugee claim to the IRB. In the regulatory scenario, the Amendments formalize the existing exemption into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, while also amending the regulatory requirements for consistency with legislative amendments. These regulatory amendments continue to ensure that claimants receive a work permit as early as possible in the claim process, provided all requirements are met.

Exceptions to the new ineligibility provisions

Two new legislative provisions make asylum claims ineligible to be referred to the IRB if the claim was made more than one year after the claimant’s first entry to Canada (after June 24, 2020) or if the claim was made 14 days or more after the claimant entered Canada irregularly from the United States.

The Amendments introduce two exceptions to these ineligibility provisions. The first codifies into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations an existing Temporary Public Policy exempting claimants who are unaccompanied minors at the time of making their claim given their lack of legal guardianship. Since this exception is already implemented via a Temporary Public Policy, unaccompanied minors are already exempt from the new ineligibility provisions in the baseline scenario. The second amendment introduces an exception to the one-year ineligibility for claimants who have submitted documents and information to the Minister in view of making a claim (prior to formally making their claim in person to an officer) within one year of their first entry (after June 24, 2020). For this second exception, the baseline scenario is the legislative amendment, which makes claims ineligible if the claimant submitted documents and information to the Minister in view of making a claim within one year of their first entry, but the claimant did not yet meet with an officer to formally make their claim in person within one year of their first entry. In the regulatory scenario, these claims meet the exception for the one-year ineligibility and thus have access to the IRB.

Application of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement and its Additional Protocol

The Amendments maintain the baseline scenario of how the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement and its Additional Protocol are currently applied in two ways: they would clarify when individuals are considered an eligible family member for the purposes of meeting the family member exception under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement and they also specify when the 14-day count in the Additional Protocol to the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement starts. These provisions are not expected to result in any material impacts, as they serve to maintain how the Agreement is currently applied, and to align the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations with the legislative amendments.

Transfer of scheduling authorities to the IRB and repeal of regulated time limits

In the baseline scenario, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations set time limits for officers to schedule hearings at the IRB and for decisions to be made. The Amendments repeal the time limits for hearings to be scheduled and decisions to be made. These changes are not expected to result in any cost impacts, as they align the Regulations with current practices and with the legislative amendments.

Repeal of the Designated Country of Origin regime

There would be no material impact or costs as a result of the repeal of the Designated Country of Origin regime. The regulatory provision related to this regime has been inoperative since 2019. Hence, this repeal will have no impact except to ensure the Regulations are consistent with current IRCC policies and practices.

Costs

The Amendments are estimated to cost $14,031,338 PV in 10 periods. These costs consist of administrative adjustments to existing asylum processes, operational and program guidance update activities, and IT system upgrades. These costs would be incurred by IRCC, the CBSA and the IRB.

Government transition cost

IRCC would incur transition costs in the first period following the implementation of the Amendments, which are estimated at $2,101,925 PV. These costs include developing program delivery instructions, developing and conducting officer training, developing and conducting information sessions for designated representatives, coordinating changes with the IRB and CBSA, updating IT systems, and communication activities to update websites and related products.

CBSA would incur one-time transition costs estimated at $289,100 in the first period. These consist of IT updates related to the changes to the withdrawal and abandonment process, and IT updates associated with the designated representative regulatory changes.

The IRB would similarly incur transition costs associated with developing operational guidance for tribunal staff, developing and delivering member training, coordinating implementation with IRCC and the CBSA, updating IT systems, and communication activities to update websites and related products. These costs, however, are not significant and are not included as incremental monetized costs distinct from related activities associated with the implementation of the legislation.

Government ongoing cost

IRCC would incur ongoing costs estimated at $4,505,255 PV in 10 periods. These costs include updating program delivery instructions and functional guidance, monitoring new procedures (service standards, volumes, etc.), maintaining a list of designated representatives and monitoring their activities and contracts, updating web pages and communications products, IT system monitoring and maintenance, and coordinating processes with the IRB and CBSA.

CBSA would incur ongoing costs estimated at $1,286,941 PV in 10 periods. These consist of additional effort required for the triaging agents transmitting cases to the IRB for abandonment proceedings and minor costs associated with the remuneration of designated representatives as related to enforcement actions post IRB decisions.

IRB would incur ongoing costs estimated at $5,848,113 PV in 10 periods. These consist of activities for processing claims that were referred to the IRB but for which IRCC or the CBSA were unable to complete all Minister’s Due Diligence activities according to the prescribed referral timelines. These ongoing activities relate to verifying all documents for accuracy, completeness, correct tagging of documentation for data integrity, and follow-ups.

Exceptions to the new ineligibilities costs to the Government

The Amendments introduce an exception from the one-year ineligibility provisions for claimants who have submitted documents and information to the Minister in view of making a claim (prior to formally making their claim in person to an officer) within one year of their first entry (after June 24, 2020). As a result of the exception, certain claims which would have been determined ineligible will now be eligible to be referred to the IRB.

The exception is expected to generate incremental costs to the Government of Canada, as it expands access to the IRB for certain claimants. However, these costs were not monetized, as it is not possible to reliably estimate the number of additional claimants whose claims may be found eligible as a result of this measure. It is not expected that the volumes will be significantly large. The exception applies narrowly to claims made by individuals who submit documents with the view to making a claim within one year of their first entry to Canada and who, due to the Government of Canada’s administrative timelines, were unable to meet with an officer and formally make their claim within one year of their entry. This regulatory exception provides those with eligible claims with access to the IRB refugee determination process, which entails higher resource requirements across multiple departments, including CBSA, the IRB, and IRCC.

Impacts on claimants

Single online application

In the baseline scenario, there is no prescribed time limit for claimants to submit a complete online application. The Amendments introduce a time limit of 60 calendar days for the submission of a complete application after a claim has been made. The introduction of a submission time limit requires asylum claimants to prepare and submit their application materials more quickly than if there were no prescribed time limit.

Claimants could request a one-time extension of 30 calendar days if they are unable to comply with the 60-day time limit. The Amendments require that claimants who wish to obtain an extension spend time submitting an extension request, resulting in time effort costs to claimants. These costs were not monetized, as the extension process is expected to be straightforward, with a single automated action (e.g. clicking a button) initiating the extension request.

Abandonment/Reinstatement of withdrawn claims

The legislative amendments introduce the authority for the Minister to process a claim withdrawal prior to referral to the IRB. The legislative amendments also introduce the authority for the Minister, subject to regulations, to reinstate a claim that was determined to be withdrawn. The Amendments prescribe the circumstances for such a reinstatement by the Minister (e.g. whether the application was submitted in a timely manner and reasons for any delay), as well as the requirement a claimant has to meet when submitting a reinstatement application (e.g. the claimant has to explain why their claim should be reinstated). Claimants who wish to have their withdrawn claim reinstated must undertake the necessary steps to prepare and submit an application for reinstatement, which would result in time effort costs to claimants seeking a reinstatement. The reinstatement application process requires claimants to provide a rationale supporting the reinstatement of the claim. Costs related to reinstatement requests were not monetized due to the uncertainty in estimating the number of withdrawn claims that would request reinstatement. However, volumes are not expected to be significant.

Benefits
Single online application

The establishment of a consistent time limit across modes of entry would help avoid claims stagnating and standardize the time limits for applicants. Any potential negative impacts of introducing a time limit for individuals to submit their complete application are mitigated by allowing the applicant to request a one-time extension of 30 calendar days, and by providing the Minister the authority to extend this time limit for reasons of fairness (e.g. a system outage).

Minister’s Due Diligence

Completing Minister’s Due Diligence and providing the IRB with a Minister’s referral package containing all the information about the claim will allow the IRB to maximize its scheduling strategy and reduce delays due to postponements. It also bolsters program integrity by ensuring the Minister has completed due diligence on all claims before the IRB. This change benefits applicants, as there will be a more predictable and transparent process, including more efficient hearing scheduling.

Designated representatives for persons unable to appreciate the nature of proceedings

A designated representative is someone who represents a person during proceedings to ensure that the interests of the person (i.e. persons under 18 years of age a person that cannot appreciate the nature of the proceedings) are protected. The Amendments formalize the existing authority to appoint designated representatives and formalize the role and responsibilities of designated representatives. This improves consistency and continues to safeguard vulnerable applicants by ensuring that all those who require a designated representative are appointed one for all applications and proceedings outlined in the Regulations. These changes ensure the timely appointment of designated representatives, reducing gaps in support during proceedings.

Work permits

This change continues to ensure that eligible claimants obtain their work permits and are able to work in Canada as soon as possible during their application process.

Exceptions to the new ineligibility provisions

The first exception gives unaccompanied minors access to the IRB. However, given that unaccompanied minors are currently exempt from the ineligibility provisions by an existing Temporary Public Policy, no benefits are attributed to this exception. The second exception benefits those who begin the claim process within one year of their entry to Canada, but who have not yet met with an officer to make their claim in person. This exception ensures that those who declare their intention to make a claim by submitting documents and information to the Minister within the legislative time frame are not subject to the one-year ineligibility while awaiting their in-person meeting.

Cost-benefit statement
Table: Monetized cost
Impacted stakeholder Description of cost Base year (2026) Other relevant year (2030) Final year (2035) Total (present value) Annualized value
Government Costs to IRCC $2,101,925 $691,496 $691,496 $6,607,181 $940,714
Costs to the CBSA $289,103 $197,528 $197,528 $1,576,044 $224,393
Costs to the IRB $778,168 $778,168 $778,168 $5,848,113 $832,640
All stakeholders Total costs $3,169,196 $1,667,192 $1,667,192 $14,031,338 $1,997,747
Quantified (non-monetized) and qualitative impacts
Positive impacts
Negative impacts

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the Amendments would not impact Canadian small businesses.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no incremental change in administrative burden on businesses and no regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The Amendments are specific to how Canada administers the In-Canada Asylum System and, therefore, do not align with how other countries administer their asylum programs.

International obligations

Canada is a signatory to and upholds its obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Amendments will not impact the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental and economic assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

The In-Canada Asylum System provides protection to people in Canada who have a well-founded fear of persecution or are at risk of torture, risk to their lives or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. This includes protection for refugee claimants fleeing gender-based violence and persecution based on sexual orientation, race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion. Refugee claimants arriving in Canada are a heterogeneous group of individuals with a wide range of intersecting identity factors, including but not limited to country of origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. It is important to acknowledge that the experiences and vulnerabilities of refugee claimants are not uniform. Data shows, for instance, that gender-based violence and unequal access to socio-economic opportunities disproportionately impact asylum-seeking women and girls, who must be recognized for their unique protection needs.

In recent years, the Government of Canada has made significant strides in recognizing the rights of refugee claimants who identify as members of the sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) community. The In-Canada Asylum System is supported by the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Guidelines, which provide guidance on proceedings involving minors, refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution, and proceedings involving sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics. The Government of Canada is also committed to upholding and safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in part by implementing policies and programs that address individuals’ needs and circumstances. Moreover, IRCC has developed specific program delivery instructions with respect to processing in-Canada claims for refugee protection of minors and other vulnerable persons.

In 2025, approximately 59% of those applying for refugee protection in Canada identified as male, 41% identified as female and less than 1% as another gender. In 2025, the refugee claimant population was generally younger than the Canadian population (14% were 0–14 years of age, 35% were 15–29 years of age, 34% were 30–44 years of age, 13% were 45–59 years of age, 3% were 60–74 years of age and 1% were 75+). In terms of socio-economic characteristics, asylum claimants tend to be in a lower-income strata upon arrival in Canada (Statistics Canada). The top source countries of citizenship for asylum claimants in 2025 were Haiti, India, Iran, Nigeria and Mexico. For claims finalized in 2025, 10% of claimants cited gender-based violence, 11% cited sexual orientation, 10% cited race, nationality or ethnicity, and 9% cited religion as the reason for persecution.

While persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations, and events seriously disturbing the public order often affect a community uniformly, there are differences in the demographics that apply for refugee protection in Canada. For example, there are more males that apply for refugee protection in Canada. It is often very dangerous to leave one’s country of origin to seek refugee protection. When people flee their homes, they are often at greater risk of physical, sexual and psychological violence, such as rape, sexual abuse, trafficking and forced prostitution (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Women and girls are especially at risk. Men are often perceived as being more capable of surviving the danger and are sent in advance with the hope of family reunification at a later date, despite the fact that they also face risks. For this same reason, claimants are generally younger, as they are seen as more able to endure a dangerous journey. In addition, there is an economic element, as men are often the income earners in families and are perceived as more capable of getting a job and financially supporting their families in their home country.

The Amendments are expected to benefit all asylum claimants, including the most vulnerable. Whilst increasing the system’s efficiency is objectively beneficial, there are downstream impacts on vulnerable populations that require mitigating options. For example, the single online application for all claims is coupled with paper-based applications for claimants with limited access to the internet and/or poor digital literacy. Generally, people tend to choose online forms over paper-based forms for a variety of reasons, including a better user experience. However, paper-based forms will continue to be available.

In addition, the exception to the new ineligibility provisions will apply to unaccompanied minors, making the exception to the new ineligibility provisions for unaccompanied minors in the Temporary Public Policy permanent. The basis for creating this exception is their lack of legal guardianship, which may affect their ability to navigate the asylum process to present their case.

However, individuals who fall outside of the scope of the exceptions will continue to have access to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, which will ensure that Canada meets its international commitment to non-refoulement.

They will also have access to immigration and refugee legal aid services in provinces and territories that provide the service, which has a direct positive effect on individuals from the following vulnerable groups: economically disadvantaged individuals; newcomers; members of ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious minorities; 2SLGBTQI+ individuals; women; and persons with possible/probable personal histories of trauma. Pre-Removal Risk Assessment applicants can apply for a work permit and are eligible for health services through the Interim Federal Health Program.

The Amendments include comprehensive, system-wide efficiencies and take into consideration the special needs of vulnerable refugee groups like women, minors, people with disabilities and the 2SLGBTQ+ community.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The Amendments come into force on the day on which section 31 of the Amending Act comes into force, but if they are registered after that day, they come into force on the day on which they are registered.

Implementation of the Amendments will be led by IRCC in collaboration with the CBSA and IRB. IRCC coordinated updates to operational policies, procedural manuals, front-line guidance, and case management tools to operationalize changes to the streamlined process to submit any document or provide information with a view to making a claim (registration). IRCC also completed the single online application, the new eligibility screening criteria, the Minister’s Due Diligence obligations prior to referral, and processes governing the abandonment and withdrawal applications of claims prior to referral to the IRB. Claims that have already been referred and are pending adjudication at the IRB will not be subject to the new requirements and would continue to be processed as before the Amendments come into effect. Operational procedures have been established to support timely designation of representatives for new and ongoing applications. Specialized training has been delivered to front-line officers, IRB decision makers, registry staff, and CBSA officers to ensure consistent application across all points of intake and processing. Information management and IT system changes have been implemented to support the new single online application, eligibility determination, referral tracking, automated triggers and reporting, and relevant public-facing materials have been updated to support compliance and transparency. Communications products have been developed to inform stakeholders and the public of the changes, including hosting outreach sessions. Ongoing monitoring will be undertaken to assess impacts on system integrity, processing efficiency, and fairness, with results informing future policy or operational adjustments. Program reporting and performance measurement will be undertaken through established governance mechanisms to facilitate continuous improvement and to ensure alignment with policy intent.

Contact

Jason Hollmann
Director General
Asylum Branch
Email: IRCC.AsylumReformRegs-Reformedasileregs.IRCC@cic.gc.ca