Skip to main content
Legal Decision

Bill C-12 becomes law, adds new grounds for refugee-claim ineligibility under IRPA

By Soheil Hosseini • March 27, 2026
Bill C-12 becomes law, adds new grounds for refugee-claim ineligibility under IRPA

Bill C‑12 amends IRPA to add A101(1)(b.1) (claims filed >1 year after entry for entries after June 24, 2020, counted from first entry) and A101(1)(b.2) (claims filed ≥14 days after irregular entry from the U.S.); both apply to claims made on/after 2025‑06‑03. IRCC’s program update also clarifies A101(1)(c.1) information‑sharing rules; changes may improve processing clarity but raise access, litigation, and enforcement risks—stakeholders should update intake and triage.

S

Soheil Hosseini

March 27, 2026

🔗 Official Source
🏛️

Jurisdiction

Federal

📊

Week

Week 13

🎯

Impact

High

Programs Affected

Refugees Enforcement
5 min read

Bill C‑12 Becomes Law, Adding New Grounds for Refugee Claim Ineligibility Under IRPA

Date of update: 2026-03-27 | Source: IRCC | Program affected: Refugees, Enforcement | Urgency: Critical

Summary: Canada has amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) following the passage of Bill C‑12, introducing new grounds that can render refugee claims ineligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). IRCC has issued a program delivery update outlining these changes and minor clarifications. Canada’s federal government has enacted Bill C‑12, amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to expand the circumstances in which a refugee claim is ineligible for referral to the Refugee Protection Division. IRCC released a program delivery update detailing the changes and related guidance used by departmental staff. Key changes
- New ground: A101(1)(b.1) — A claim is ineligible if the claimant entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and made their claim more than one year after the day of their entry. If the person left and re‑entered Canada, the one‑year period runs from the first entry.
- New ground: A101(1)(b.2) — A claim is ineligible if the claimant entered Canada from the United States between ports of entry and made their claim 14 or more days after entry.
- Transitional provisionA101(1)(b.1) and (b.2) apply only to claims made on or after 2025-06-03.
- Minor updates to A101(1)(c.1) — Clarifies that a claim is not ineligible under A101(1)(c.1) unless a prior claim in another information‑sharing country is confirmed through information sharing, and that “refugee claim” here means an in‑country asylum claim, not an overseas resettlement application. Context
- Existing ineligibility grounds under IRPA s. 101 (including A101(1)(a)–(f) and A101(2)(a)–(b)) continue to apply, such as where the person is already a protected person in Canada, or where a prior claim was rejected, found ineligible, withdrawn, or abandoned. IRCC notes these updates are published as operational guidance to stakeholders. Independent analysis
- Potential positive impacts:
- Procedural clarity: Clear filing timelines and confirmation requirements may streamline processing and reduce duplicative or stale claims.
- Operational efficiency: Early ineligibility screening could shorten queues for claims proceeding to the IRB.
- Potential negative impacts:
- Access concerns: The one‑year filing deadline and 14‑day timeline after irregular entry from the U.S. may bar some claimants with genuine protection needs who face barriers to timely filing.
- Litigation risk: New timelines and interpretations could prompt legal challenges and require further guidance.
- Enforcement pressure: More ineligible findings may shift workload to enforcement and risk‑assessment pathways, with resource implications. What’s next
Stakeholders should review IRCC’s guidance and adjust intake, triage, and advisory practices to account for the new filing timelines and the clarified A101(1)(c.1) information‑sharing condition.

Tags: Canada immigration, Bill C‑12, IRPA, refugee claims, ineligibility, A101(1)(b.1), A101(1)(b.2), A101(1)(c.1), IRCC, IRB, Refugee Protection Division, program delivery update, enforcement, asylum policy, immigration law reform End of update.

Categories

Legal Decision

Share This Post

📧

Stay Updated with Immigration News

Get the latest updates on Express Entry draws, OINP invitations, policy changes, and more delivered to your inbox.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.

Related Articles

When to Seek Mandamus: Federal Court Remedy for Unreasonable IRCC Delays
Legal Decision Moderate

Mandamus for IRCC Delays

Practitioner guide on using Federal Court mandamus to compel IRCC where delays are unreasonable—applies across Express Entry, permits, sponsorship, H&C, refugees, citizenship and more. Emphasizes meeting the seven-part Apotex test, documenting demands, rebutting IRCC’s security/admissibility justifications, and that mandamus is discretionary and a last-resort remedy.

Sep 25, 2025 Read more →
Federal Court Upholds Exclusion Order in Karim v. Canada, Rules Students Must Prove Study‑Permit Compliance
Legal Decision High

Exclusion Order Upheld

In Karim v. Canada (2025 FC 1467) the Federal Court upheld an exclusion order, ruling international students bear the onus to prove study‑permit compliance or eligibility for exemptions. Re‑enrollment does not cure past non‑compliance, and CBSA/IRCC are not required to identify or apply exemptions for applicants.

Sep 5, 2025 Read more →
Federal Court upholds five-year misrepresentation ban after finding Lai Man Lam’s MBA likely ghostwritten
Legal Decision Moderate

Misrepresentation Ban Upheld

Federal Court dismissed Lai Man Lam’s judicial review and upheld a five‑year inadmissibility finding under IRPA s.40(1)(a) after concluding her MBA was likely ghostwritten. The ruling affirms officers’ discretion to probe academic credentials through targeted interviews, finding procedural fairness met and the decision reasonable on review.

Sep 2, 2025 Read more →
Federal Court Overturns Work Permit Refusal, Citing Unjustified Dismissal of Submitted Experience Evidence
Legal Decision Moderate

Work Permit Overturned

Federal Court set aside refusal of an LMIA‑supported employer‑specific work permit after finding the visa officer unreasonably dismissed reference letters, payslips and certificates while elevating missing optional financial documents to a determinative ground. In Mohammad v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the Court applied Vavilov, requiring transparent, holistic evidence assessments (not treating “additional” documents as mandatory) and remitted the matter for redetermination.

Aug 5, 2025 Read more →