Canada’s Refugee Claims in 2025 — Numbers and What Claimants Need to Know
Canada’s refugee system has been under huge strain in recent years. Between sharply higher intake at times, a massive inventory of pending cases, and new policy proposals aimed at speeding up refusals, the landscape for refugee claimants is changing fast. There are important statistics that explain common reasons claims are refused, “streamlined” to help the system, and practical advice claimants need to know in pursuing a refugee claim in Canada.
The Numbers Over The Years
The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) significantly increased output in 2024–25, finalizing over 78,700 cases in that fiscal year while receiving roughly 173,000 referrals in the same period. That combination (high intake + heavy output) still left hundreds of thousands of claims pending. Over the last five years, the RPD’s average recognition (acceptance) rate has been about 63%, though that rate varies considerably by country of origin and by decision-maker. This means a substantial portion of claims are allowed, but a significant number are refused.
IRCC reporting shows a drop in asylum claims in early to mid-2025 versus 2024 (for example, a 34% decline in claims between January–July 2025 compared to the same period in 2024), driven partly by fewer temporary resident visas issued and other operational changes. Deportations of people whose refugee claims were rejected rose: Reuters reported about 7,300 removals up to November 2024 (an increase vs prior years), with a large share being persons whose refugee claims had been refused.
Acceptance vs Rejection: The Nuance Behind the Percentages
A headline “63% acceptance rate” hides a large variation. Some nationalities and some RPD decision-makers have much higher recognition rates; others have much lower. Researchers and IRB disclosures show wide disparities, a reminder that outcomes turn on the factual record, the decision-maker, the country context at the time of the hearing, and on process choices (paper-based grant vs full hearing). Some claims are decided on the papers and are more likely to be allowed when the evidence is straightforward; others go to contested hearings and face greater scrutiny.
Why Refugee Claims are Refused: The Common Legal Reasons
Refusal often reflects one or more of these principal findings:
Credibility problems. Decision-makers frequently reject claims when they find the claimant’s testimony inconsistent, implausible, or contradicted by documentary evidence. Credibility is the central issue in many refusals.
Insufficient evidence of a well-founded fear. Even if a claimant is sincere, the RPD must be satisfied that the claimant faces persecution for a Convention ground (race, religion, political opinion, etc.) or is in need of protection under Canadian law. If the evidence does not meet that standard, claims can be refused.
Safe third country/exclusion rules. Some claimants are ineligible for a full RPD hearing (or are returned to another jurisdiction) under statutory or policy rules (e.g., Safe Third Country Agreement issues or other inadmissibility/exclusion grounds).
Newness / late disclosure/misrepresentation. If a claimant adds materially new allegations late without explanation, the tribunal may treat those claims skeptically; deliberate misrepresentation can lead to refusal and future bars.
Criminality or security/inadmissibility. Criminal convictions or serious security concerns can make a claimant inadmissible and thus remove protection options.
These reasons are legal assessments rooted in statutory tests, case law and IRB practice. They show why well-prepared, evidence-based claims stand the best chance.
Are “Streamlining” Measures Helping IRCC and the IRB?
Policymakers have been experimenting with or proposing several measures to accelerate processing and reduce the backlog, including paper-based grants for straightforward claims, triage/streaming of cases, and in some proposals, faster refusal tracks for claims judged unlikely to succeed. Canada’s stated aim is to focus hearing resources where they matter most and to reduce the inventory of old claims. The IRB did increase decision output in 2024–25.
But “streamlining” is contested:
Supporters argue that triage/paper grants reduce unnecessary hearings, shorten wait times for meritorious claimants, and let the system focus on complex or high-risk cases. Faster refusals can reduce cost and allow removals to proceed where appropriate. IRB productivity gains in 2024–25 are consistent with increased use of paper-based and streamed decisions.
Critics and advocates warn that fast-track refusals and overly broad streaming risk denying procedural fairness, particularly where claimants face language, trauma, or disclosure barriers, and may push potentially meritorious claimants into removal before their cases are fully heard. Human-rights groups have cautioned that expedited refusal pathways may not substitute for properly resourced, individualized adjudication. Reuters and refugee advocates have raised these concerns in reporting on government proposals to fast-track certain refusals.
In short, streamlining can help capacity and speed, but only if accompanied by safeguards, resources for quality decision-making, and careful rules about who is streamed where. The debate is live in Parliament and in courts.
Political and Public Opinion: The Larger Context
Politically, refugee and asylum policy has become more fraught. Governments face pressure from municipalities and provinces about housing and services, and public sentiment in some polls has shifted toward wanting lower immigration or tighter controls. The federal government has signalled it will tighten some eligibility and border measures and has committed additional resources to removals and border integrity; critics counter that Canada’s humanitarian obligations require careful preservation of due process. News reporting has focused on student-claim trends and the perceived system abuse; advocates highlight that many claimants have legitimate protection needs and that cuts to refugee resettlement targets harm family reunification.
Public opinion is mixed: some Canadians support faster removals and stricter rules to protect services, while others — refugee lawyers, NGOs and many urban constituencies — stress compassion and legal protections for persons fleeing persecution. This polarization is driving both policy proposals and legal challenges.
Practical Takeaways for Refugee Claimants
Get legal advice early. Because credibility and evidentiary detail are critical, experienced counsel can help prepare a focused, well-evidenced claim and respond promptly to requests.
Document everything. Country-condition reports, medical or psychological evidence, police and court documents, and witness statements can make the difference between allowance and refusal.
Explain delays or late evidence. If you could not provide material facts earlier (trauma, fear, language), explain why and provide corroboration. Courts and tribunals take reasons for delay seriously but require them to be credible.
Be candid about prior history. Hidden criminal history, removals or misrepresentations discovered later can doom applications. Full disclosure with legal strategy is essential.
Monitor policy changes. Proposed fast-track rules or statutory changes may affect eligibility or process timelines; a lawyer can advise on the best timing and approach given shifting rules.
✅ How Ayodele Law Can Help
If you are preparing a refugee claim or received an adverse decision, contact Ayodele Law Professional Corporation now. Our experienced refugee lawyers can review your case, assemble evidence, prepare legal submissions, advise on appeals and judicial review, and help protect your rights at every stage.
📞Book a consultation today to give your application the best possible chance of success
