Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act, became law in March 2026 and added two new ineligibility rules to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Because the one-year rule reaches back to entries made after June 24, 2020, IRCC has been writing to people whose refugee claims were already referred to the Refugee Protection Division to say that the claim may now be ineligible. That letter is a procedural fairness letter, not a decision. There is normally a short window to reply, and the reply should concentrate on whether the entry dates IRCC is relying on are correct, on getting disclosure of what the officer is looking at, and on any exemption that applies.
Key Takeaways
- The one-year rule (IRPA s. 101(1)(b.1)) makes a claim ineligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board if the claimant entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and claimed more than one year after that entry.
- Where there has been more than one entry after June 24, 2020, the one-year clock starts the day after the first entry, not the most recent one (s. 101(1.1)).
- IRCC has estimated that roughly 28,000 claims already before the Board are being re-examined on eligibility. Claims that have already been heard are not being reopened.
- A finding of ineligibility means no Board hearing. The claimant is redirected to a pre-removal risk assessment, which is paper based, carries no appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, and has no statutory stay if judicial review is filed.
- Existing documents are affected. Study permits are cancelled by law once a removal order comes into force, and eTAs, TRVs and TRPs are cancelled when the claim is made and a removal order issues. A temporary public policy allows some affected people to work.
What the letter actually says, and what it is not
A procedural fairness letter tells you that the officer is considering a finding that would go against you, sets out the basis for it, and invites a response. It is not the decision. Nothing has been determined at the point the letter arrives.
The letters going out under the new rules generally say that, on the information IRCC holds, the claimant entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and made a refugee claim more than one year after that entry, so the claim appears to be ineligible for referral under s. 101(1)(b.1). The consequence of a negative finding is not a refusal of protection. It is the loss of access to a Board hearing.
Two practical points follow. First, the deadline in the letter is short and IRCC is not obliged to extend it. Second, silence is generally not a strategy. If the dates in the letter are wrong, the response is the place to correct them.
Who is receiving these letters
The people affected are, for the most part, those whose claims were filed and referred before the new rules came into force and are now caught by the retroactive reach of the one-year rule. IRCC has estimated the affected population of claims already at the Board at around 28,000, which is why the letters are arriving in volume rather than one at a time.
Two groups are largely outside this wave. Claims that have already been heard by the Board are not being reopened. And the second new rule, the 14-day rule at s. 101(1)(b.2), which applies to people who crossed the Canada-United States land border between ports of entry and claimed more than 14 days later, is generally being applied at the front end rather than through fairness letters to claims already referred. That rule, and its interaction with the Safe Third Country Agreement, is covered separately in our note on the Safe Third Country Agreement and the 14-day rule.
Check whether the rule really applies to you
Before drafting anything, rebuild the entry history. The analysis turns on dates, and the dates IRCC holds are not always complete or correct.
- Was there an entry after June 24, 2020? The rule only bites on entries after that date.
- How many entries were there? Under s. 101(1.1), where a person has entered more than once after June 24, 2020, the one-year period runs from the day after the first entry. Someone who arrived in 2021, travelled abroad, and returned in 2025 does not get a fresh clock on the later entry. This is the single most misunderstood feature of the rule, and it is also the CBA’s main criticism of it.
- When exactly was the claim made? The date the claim was made, not the date it was referred or the date of a hearing notice, is what matters.
- Do your records match IRCC’s? Passport stamps, boarding passes, study or work permit start dates, a CBSA traveller history, and school or employment records can all be used to establish the correct dates.
If the dates in the letter are simply wrong, that is the strongest possible response and it should be documented rather than asserted.
What to put in the response
Where the dates are right and the rule does apply, there is less room, but the response still matters.
Request disclosure of the information the officer is relying on if the letter does not identify it clearly. You cannot meaningfully answer a case you have not seen.
Correct the record on entries, exits, and the claim date, with documents attached rather than described.
Raise any exemption or special consideration that applies to the individual. Unaccompanied minors and designated representative issues are the clearest examples, and vulnerability that bears on why a claim was made late should be put on the record even where it does not create a formal exception, because it may matter later on judicial review or in an H&C application.
Decide deliberately whether to respond at all. In a narrow set of files, where the rule plainly applies and the response would only repeat what IRCC already has, counsel may focus their effort on the next stage instead. That should be a considered choice, made with the deadlines for the following steps in view, not a default.
If the claim is found ineligible: the PRRA route
A claim found ineligible is not referred to the Board. The claimant is instead directed to a pre-removal risk assessment once removal proceedings begin. The government’s position is that risk is still assessed; the practical differences are substantial.
A PRRA is decided on paper by an IRCC officer rather than by an independent tribunal member after an oral hearing. There is no appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division. Filing for judicial review of a negative PRRA does not create a statutory stay of removal, so a deferral request or a stay motion in Federal Court may be needed on short notice. Historically, PRRA approval rates have been far lower than approval rates at the Board, which puts an unusual weight on the quality of the written record. Our PRRA guide sets out how the process works.
Because the file is written, preparation carries the whole case. The claimant’s detailed personal statement does the work a Basis of Claim narrative and oral testimony would otherwise do. Risk has to be individualized rather than left to country conditions. Targeted evidence that goes beyond the National Documentation Package, and corroborating statements from people who can speak to the specific risk, matter more here than they would before the Board. Where credibility is genuinely in issue and a hearing is not otherwise mandatory, ask for one.
One group faces a harder problem. Where removal to a country is administratively deferred, a person may not be called for a PRRA at all, because the PRRA is triggered by removal proceedings that are not going to start. Reporting in 2026 has described claimants from roughly twenty-two countries subject to an administrative deferral of removals sitting in exactly that position: no hearing, no removal, and no risk assessment. If that describes your file, the planning has to shift to the tools that do not depend on removal being active.
Working and studying while this plays out
The document consequences are immediate and are often overlooked.
An eTA, a temporary resident visa, or a temporary resident permit is cancelled when the claim is made and a removal order issues. A visitor record does not allow a person to remain once a removal order becomes enforceable. A study permit is cancelled by operation of law once the removal order comes into force, and studying requires a new permit. Existing work permits may remain valid, but a new application has to be made before expiry if the person wants to keep working.
A temporary public policy allows certain people whose claims were found ineligible to apply for an open work permit, and is intended to prevent cancellation of existing work permits in the covered situations. It does not apply to everyone: exclusions include claims found ineligible under the Safe Third Country Agreement, people already recognized as Convention refugees in another country to which they can return, people who are already protected persons in Canada, and people subject to extradition. On the study side, IRPR s. 215(1) allows an in-Canada study permit application from a person subject to an unenforceable removal order, and IRCC has indicated that ineligible claimants who may later apply for a PRRA can apply for a study permit and pay the applicable fees.
Public policies are amended and withdrawn without notice. Verify the current IRCC posting before relying on any of this for a specific file.
Where H&C fits, and when to file
An application for permanent residence with a humanitarian and compassionate request under IRPA s. 25 runs on a separate track and does not stay removal by itself. Timing is governed by the statutory bars.
If the claim was never referred to the Board, an H&C can be filed at any time. If the claim was referred and then found ineligible, an H&C can be filed between the ineligibility finding and the PRRA, because s. 25(1.2)(b.1) bars an H&C only while a PRRA is pending after an ineligibility finding. Given how long H&C processing runs, filing earlier in that window is generally better than filing later. What an H&C can and cannot do is set out in our note on options for long-term undocumented residents.
Judicial review of the ineligibility decision
The ineligibility finding is a decision that can be challenged by application for leave and judicial review in Federal Court. Counsel are advancing constitutional arguments against the new provisions, including that the retroactive reach of the one-year rule engages s. 7 of the Charter, that s. 15 is engaged by the disproportionate effect on particular groups, and that replacing an individualized eligibility assessment with a categorical bar, decided without a guaranteed oral hearing before an independent decision maker, is unfair.
Two practical notes. Filing judicial review of the ineligibility decision does not by itself stop the PRRA process from moving forward. And a file may end up with two judicial reviews running: one against the ineligibility decision and one against a negative PRRA. The deadlines are short, so identify the ineligibility issue at the first consultation and start the PRRA strategy immediately rather than waiting for the outcome of the fairness process.
Frequently asked questions
Does a fairness letter mean my claim has been refused?
No. It means the officer is considering a finding of ineligibility and is giving you a chance to respond first. Nothing is decided until the eligibility decision issues.
My claim was already scheduled for a hearing. Can that still be taken away?
Yes, if the claim has not yet been heard. The one-year rule reaches claims already referred to the Board, which is why these letters exist. Claims that have already been heard are not being reopened.
I left Canada and came back. Doesn’t the clock start again?
No. Under s. 101(1.1), where there have been multiple entries after June 24, 2020, the one-year period runs from the day after the first of them.
If my claim is ineligible, do I still get a risk assessment?
Usually through a PRRA rather than a Board hearing, and the PRRA is triggered by removal proceedings. Where removal to your country is administratively deferred, the PRRA may not be offered at all, which is one of the sharpest criticisms of the new framework.
Can I keep working while this is happening?
Possibly. A temporary public policy allows some affected people to apply for an open work permit and protects some existing permits, but there are exclusions and the policy can change. Confirm your document status against the current IRCC posting before continuing to work or study.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Immigration law and IRCC/ESDC policy change frequently, and every case turns on its own facts. Reading this article does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Obtain advice tailored to your situation before you act.
Talk to a Canadian immigration lawyer. BridgePoint Law advises individuals and businesses across Canada — and on Canada–US–China cross-border matters — on refugee eligibility, PRRA, and Federal Court challenges. Book a consultation with our team in Toronto and Kingston. We work in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.