Canada News
The truth about asylum in Canada
The right to apply for asylum is a fundamental protection enshrined in Canadian and international law. (Pexels Photo)
Canada’s robust asylum system is largely misunderstood. Many Canadians don’t actually know how asylum works, and the lack of understanding has allowed for a moral panic to develop around asylum seekers, particularly international students. The panic is being fuelled by misinformation, disinformation, sensational media narratives, and political rhetoric.
But asylum isn’t automatic. Many asylum seekers are rejected because they don’t meet stringent criteria for protection. This is something that Canadians need to understand. Systemic issues are driving asylum claims but legal frameworks ground the asylum system.
The heated public discourse needs to change. It’s hurtful on an individual level and damaging on a societal level. Policymakers should be actively countering the prevailing anti-refugee narrative by focusing on effective policy solutions that solve underlying challenges without stigmatizing vulnerable populations. The public, too, needs to approach the topic from a more-informed position.
How asylum works
The right to apply for asylum is a fundamental protection enshrined in Canadian and international law. It offers individuals in grave danger the opportunity to seek safety, but not everyone is accepted. To qualify as a refugee, applicants must demonstrate a “well-founded fear of persecution.” Rejected claimants are expected to leave Canada or face deportation.
Applying is a rigorous process. Yet public discourse often conflates asylum claims with automatic acceptance. This misconception has been amplified by media coverage that focuses narrowly on just the first step: claims.
Institutions, not international students, are to blame for rising asylum claims
Changes to permits for international students reward the worst colleges and hurt serious researchers
But understanding the more consequential part – acceptances and rejections – would help Canadians see that the system is robust. It’s been a reliable system for a long time and with more resources to deal with higher volumes of claims, it can continue to be.
Refugees and migrants are easy targets, however. They possess little political power and cannot vote, which makes them easy scapegoats. Politicians routinely target them in political campaigns.
It happened in the U.S. election campaign, as both parties move to crack down on illegal migrants, and it’s unfolding here in Canada as an election looms large.
There is also the panic surrounding Donald Trump’s vow to deport millions of people on Day 1 and his threat to impose tariffs of 25 per cent on Canadian products if Canada doesn’t stem the flow of drugs and migrants across the border. The Trudeau government is planning to significantly step up efforts to secure the border. All of it adds to anti-refugee rhetoric.
International students and misleading narratives
The rise in asylum claims by international students has dominated the news. The headline on an editorial in The Globe and Mail summed up a widespread sentiment: “The meltdown in Canada’s refugee system.”
But context is important. The raw number of claims – nearly 14,000 in 2024 – is routinely reported without context. But those claims account for 1.94 per cent of the 1.7 million international students in Canada since 2018. In other words, 98 per cent of international students did not apply for asylum.
Yet, international students are often painted as opportunists exploiting the asylum system. This framing fails to consider systemic issues. Many international students face dire financial challenges during their time in Canada. They often incur substantial debt or resort to precarious living conditions to afford their education. Rising tuition fees, high living costs, and limited work can trap some students in a cycle of despair that leads them to consider asylum as a last resort to remain in Canada.
Applying for asylum, however, is very unlikely to guarantee anyone, especially international students, the chance to stay in Canada. Data from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) shows the depth of asylum rejections.
I examined data from the top three countries where asylum claims in 2024 have come from: 1) India, 2) Nigeria, and 3) Bangladesh, looking at the last four years. The IRB database doesn’t explain its decisions, but acceptance and rejection levels tend to vary depending on social and political unrest in countries abroad.
From 2021 to 2024, claims from Bangladesh were more often accepted than rejected. The country has struggled with democratic backsliding in recent years, and its government fully collapsed this summer after a popular uprising led to the death of hundreds of protestors at the hands of the police.
Similarly, Nigeria had violence at the polls in its February 2023 election, Human Rights Watch reported, as well as a resurgence of attacks by a breakout group of Boko Haram and other armed groups. Before 2023, a lot of claims were rejections. After 2023, rejections began to drop.
India is the main source country for asylum claims among international students. Applications from India have many more rejections than acceptances, with a higher volume of rejections than those from Nigeria and Bangladesh. In 2021 and 2022 in particular, there were more rejections than acceptances.
In 2021, 1,652 asylum claimants from India were rejected and 1,043 were accepted, a 56-per- cent rejection rate. In 2022, 3,796 were rejected and 3,468 were accepted, a 49-per-cent rejection rate.
The rejections are important. They take the air out of the rhetoric that Minister Marc Miller has perpetuated by saying international students are applying for asylum as a backdoor to stay in Canada and to qualify for lower tuition fees.
The IRB data suggests many claims will continue to be rejected.
How to strengthen the system
The system needs support, not moral outrage. Policymakers and the public should focus on solutions that address the root causes of the large backlog in our asylum systems. Here are some key ways to do that:
Penalize bad actors. Immigration consultants and colleges that exploit vulnerable international students must face stricter penalties. Minister Miller has begun this process, but it is late in the game and more can be done.
In November, he sent a letter to the president of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC) warning consultants against advising asylum seekers to misrepresent themselves to remain in Canada. The CICC president responded by saying those who breach the code could be subject to regulatory penalties, including license revocation.
But the government knows who the bad actors are. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has the evidence, which shows a significant number of asylum claims coming from opportunistic colleges and universities like Seneca Polytechnic and Conestoga College.
Harsher penalties for opportunistic immigration consultants would help lower fraudulent claims and ease the strain on an overstretched system with a huge backlog.
Further enhance IRCC checks. Show how strict the system is. Enhanced checks recently flagged 10,000 fraudulent foreign-student acceptance letters from Canadian colleges and universities. But why stop at flagging? Why not push it further? IRCC could link these letters back to opportunistic immigration consultants or educational advisors in the sending states, then penalize them.
Expedite asylum applications for international students. This will take away incentive for immigration consultants, colleges or anyone else in the immigration industrial complex to advise international students to misrepresent themselves in asylum claims. Minister Miller has hinted that fast-tracking of refugee refusals is being considered.
Add staffing to deal with the increase in claims. Hire “surge capacity officers.” It’s been done before when asylum claims have increased.
Better equip students. Use more outreach and awareness campaigns to make sure students know they have options when their study permits expire. For example, they can 1) extend their study permit, 2) apply for a new study permit, and 3) apply for post-graduation work permit. If they are more aware of their options and feel more supported, they may be less likely to follow advice to misrepresent themselves.
Get the full picture. The public needs to be better informed to turn down the heat around asylum. Recognize the bigger context and accept that an asylum claim does not guarantee refugee status. Anyone with concerns should consult the government website to develop a higher level of literacy around asylum, international students and the data around it. Contact your MPs or Minister Miller. Adding misinformation online or contributing to anti-refugee rhetoric has detrimental and long-term negative effects on our social fabric that will take decades to undo.
This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
