Understanding Canada’s New Asylum Eligibility Rules: STCA, Bill C-12, and What It Means for Refugee Claimants

At the 2026 CBA National Immigration Conference, I presented on the significant changes introduced by the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act (formerly Bill C-12, which received royal assent on March 26, 2026). These amendments added two new bars to the referral of refugee claims to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). The rules apply to all claims made on or after June 3, 2025, in addition to the existing bars under s. 101 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).The government has been clear that the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) remains unchanged: individuals who make a claim at a land border port of entry or within 14 days of an irregular crossing continue to be returned to the United States unless they qualify for an exception or exemption.

What’s not so clear? For practitioners and claimants alike, the interplay between the new timing rules and the STCA has created a more complex landscape. Below is a breakdown of who can have their claim referred to the IRB, who gets returned, who receives a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), and what this means in real-world scenarios.

New Asylum Eligibility Requirements

Bill C-12 introduced two key timing-based bars:

Important note: Even if a claimant meets these new timing rules, they must still satisfy all other eligibility criteria, including the STCA (where applicable) and s. 101 IRPA.

The so-called Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) – Unchanged by Bill C-12

The STCA continues to operate independently:A claimant is subject to return to the U.S. if the claim is made at a land border port of entry OR after an irregular crossing and within 14 days of entry — unless they qualify for a STCA exemption (family member, unaccompanied minor, document holder, or public interest).

STCA does not apply (no automatic return) if the claim is made more than 14 days after an irregular crossing.

Even claimants who qualify for a STCA exception must still meet s. 101 IRPA requirements to have their claim referred to the IRB.

Clear Scenarios: Returns, IRB Referral, and PRRA Access (post-June 3, 2025 claims)

Should an Ineligible Claim Still Be Made?

In most cases, yes — particularly when STCA interplay is considered. Filing an ineligible claim generally provides access to a work permit and Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) coverage. For those impacted by the constitutional challenges to Bill C-12 (now over 110 cases, many in case management), making a claim can position individuals to benefit from any favourable outcomes.

Potential downsides are limited: the story is “locked in” for future proceedings, legal costs are incurred, H&C applications are not available while ineligible, and a PRRA (when eventually served) may scrutinize any delay in claiming.

The PRRA Bottleneck — and IRCC’s Response

The new rules have shifted tens of thousands of claimants into the PRRA stream. Historically handled by only 60–64 Senior Immigration Officers with a capacity of roughly 420 decisions per month, IRCC has dramatically expanded the workforce to 187 officers (a net increase of 123) and plans to hire roughly 50 more.

New officers undergo six months of training (two months classroom + four months mentored onboarding) before making independent decisions. IRCC projects this will deliver approximately 1,600 additional PRRA decisions per month — nearly a 400% increase.

Despite these efforts, backlogs and pressure are rarely conducive to high-quality decision-making. Remarkably our firm has already seen officers relying on AI/LLM tools to draft reasons.

Credibility assessments remain challenging in a paper-based process, and we expect continued reliance on “insufficiency,” state protection, and Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) as refusal grounds. A refused PRRA carries no automatic stay of removal, which will likely lead to a surge in Federal Court stay motions.

Real-World Case Study: Venezuelan Family (Pseudonym: Ms. Elena Vargas)

Ineligible claimants (and not caught by the STC) are still entitled to a PRRA. However, for nationals of the approximately 22 countries under Administrative Deferral of Removals (ADR) — like Venezuela — removal is suspended. The practical result is often limbo: no refugee hearing, no PRRA (because there’s no removal initiated), only interim work/study permits, potential prolonged family separation, and extraordinarily long Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) processing times.

As the Toronto Star reported (Nicholas Keung, May 25, 2026), an ineligible claimant from Venezuela “will neither get a refugee hearing nor a risk assessment, but be stuck in limbo in Canada.”

Ms. Vargas, a human rights advocate, fled persecution in Venezuela with her two daughters. The family entered the U.S. on Humanitarian Parole in April 2024, filed asylum there, but later had their U.S. work permit revoked. On August 14, 2025, they claimed protection at a Canadian land border port of entry to join family in Calgary.STCA + s. 101 IRPA (prior U.S. asylum claim) barred referral to the IRB.
ADR to Venezuela prevented removal → classic “limbo” scenario.
Children were enrolled in Calgary schools; Ms. Vargas was employed.

Solution pursued: We applied for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) under s. 24(1) IRPA together with an open work permit. Compelling factors — past persecution, best interests of the children, economic integration, and a clear family reunification pathway — lay the bedrock for the discretionary relief. The TRP can lead to regularization/a route to PR via  the Permit Holder Class, perhaps paving the way for the husband to come here as well.

Lesson: When STCA, s. 101, Bill C-12, and ADR/moratorium status converge, traditional protection pathways are blocked. Creative advocacy (e.g., TRP applications supported by strong evidence) can still deliver meaningful relief.

Key Takeaways for Claimants and Practitioners

The 2025–2026 changes have layered new barriers that can trap even genuine protection seekers — especially from moratorium countries — in prolonged limbo.

STCA returns claimants; new timing rules bar others from IRB hearings; ADR often frustrates the PRRA safety net.

When standard pathways are closed, s. 24(1) TRPs remain a powerful discretionary tool when supported by compelling evidence.

Winning a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)

With so many claimants now ineligible for an IRB hearing, the PRRA has become the primary (and sometimes only) opportunity for risk assessment. Unlike RPD hearings, PRRA is almost entirely paper-based. Success demands meticulous preparation. There’s some positive news -it appears that acceptance rates are higher where there’s no prior risk assessment

Here are practical tips drawn from our firm’s experience:

• Preparation is everything — Invest heavily in detailed client interviews, polished affidavits, and organized evidence. Address every potential weakness head-on.
• Master the materials — Review the current National Documentation Package (NDP) and older favourable versions, plus independent sources. Know the Chairperson Guidelines and Interpretation Binder.
• Ensure consistency with all prior materials and proactively explain delays or inconsistencies.
• Individualize the risk — Link the claimant’s unique experiences, activities, identity, and vulnerabilities directly to country conditions.
• Go beyond the NDP — Submit fresh, targeted evidence: expert affidavits, medical/psychological reports, police records, etc.
• Secure strong corroborative statements — Detailed, notarized affidavits from family, friends, and colleagues carry significant weight.
• Request an interview (where available) if credibility is at issue — Some get a mandatory interview, and in either case take detailed notes; there will be no transcript.
• Be a zealous written advocate — Your legal submissions are your only voice. Be assertive, structured, and proactive in addressing officer concerns.
• Know your file inside and out — Anticipate and rebut every possible adverse inference.
• Know the law — Stay current on ss. 113–115 IRPA, forward-looking risk assessment, and key Federal Court jurisprudence (e.g., Magonza v. Canada, 2019 FC 14).
• Remember a strong PRRA record is also the cornerstone of any subsequent Federal Court stay motion. Note that “unclean hands” arguments appear to be on the rise as a basis for refusing stays. A wave of stay applications is going to beset the already beleagured Federal Court.

Final Thoughts

Canada’s asylum system continues to evolve rapidly. While the new rules signal a clear policy direction, they have also created unintended bottlenecks and genuine hardship for protection seekers. At our firm, we remain committed to helping clients navigate these complexities — whether through strategic claim filing, TRP applications, robust PRRA advocacy, or litigation.

If you or someone you know is affected by these changes, we encourage you to seek experienced counsel early. The right strategy can make all the difference between limbo and a stable future in Canada.