“How was it possible for an adjudicative tribunal to implement a policy that dispenses with the act of abjudication?” ~ James Yousif

By Probe International

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has adopted a controversial policy that allows approval of asylum claims based solely on written applications, bypassing the essential in-person hearings that are crucial for detecting fraud and assessing national security risks, reveals a new report published by the C.D. Howe Institute.

With a budget of nearly $350 million and 2,500 employees, the IRB remains largely opaque to government oversight, observes report author James Yousif, a lawyer and former immigration and refugee board member. Yousif argues the IRB’s current approach to asylum claims has led to a dramatic increase in Canada’s acceptance rate, with 80% of decisions made in favor of applicants, compared to much lower rates in other countries, such as Ireland and Sweden.

Despite the intention to reduce the growing backlog of asylum claims—which increased from 17,000 in 2016 to nearly 300,000 by 2025—the IRB’s policy has failed its objectives, says Yousif. Instead, it has amplified the perception that Canada’s asylum system is easy to navigate, leading to an influx of claims and a higher risk of fraud.

Underscoring the urgent need for reform, the absence of questioning during the asylum process raises significant concerns around the potential for exploitation by individuals with malicious intent.

In his coverage of the report, investigative journalist Sam Cooper asserts the IRB system has effectively created a “roadmap” for fraudsters, leading to permanent fiscal ramifications for Canadian social programs, as accepted claims grant access to permanent residency, healthcare, and social services.

Cooper ties Canada’s ongoing border and trade disputes with the United States to Canada’s immigration policies. On December 16, 2025, President Trump expanded travel restrictions on nationals from countries identified by the White House as having severe deficiencies in screening and vetting, including Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. While the U.S. imposes these restrictions for security reasons, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) has been accepting asylum claims from nationals of these countries without any questioning. The implications for national security are obvious.

As Canada grapples with a historic surge in irregular migration and immigration fraud, the situation has become increasingly precarious. Reports indicate the immigration system is overwhelmed and vulnerable to exploitation by organized crime, which markets forged documents to migrants for profit. Cooper’s ongoing investigative work reveals that this environment has allowed foreign mafias to profit from fraudulent claims, as well as recruit migrants into violent activities.

Cooper’s sources suggest that some of this violence is linked to international political conflicts, including tensions involving the Indian government and Punjabi separatist groups, highlighting a major national-security vulnerability.