One-Year Bar on Refugee Claims: How We Challenged IRCC’s Procedural Fairness Letter

Recent changes to Canada’s refugee system—particularly following Bill C-12—have introduced stricter timelines for making refugee claims. As discussed in our earlier post, Notices Without Delay: IRCC Moves Swiftly After Bill C-12 to Screen Out Late Refugee Claims, IRCC is now moving quickly to issue procedural fairness letters to individuals whose claims may fall outside the one-year eligibility window.

At Apuntar Legal Services, we recently responded to such a letter on behalf of our clients. Below is the legal framework and arguments we advanced to challenge the application of the one-year bar in their case—and why we are hopeful that IRCC will reconsider its position.

The Legal Framework: Not Just a Deadline

Sections 101(1)(b.1) and 101(1.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) render a refugee claim ineligible if it is made more than one year after a person’s first entry into Canada (for entries after June 24, 2020).

However, the analysis does not end there.

These provisions must be interpreted in a manner consistent with:

• The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

• Canada’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention

• The principle of non-refoulement

• The duty of procedural fairness

As confirmed in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, administrative decisions must be justified in light of these legal constraints.

The Central Issue We Raised

In our response to IRCC’s procedural fairness letter, we emphasized that the issue is not whether the one-year bar exists—but whether it can be applied in a way that:

• Bars access to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) despite risk arising after entry

• Denies a meaningful oral hearing

• Exposes individuals to a real risk of return to persecution without full adjudication

We argued that such an application is both legally unsustainable and constitutionally impermissible.

Our Key Legal Arguments

1. The “First Entry” Rule Must Be Applied Purposefully

We argued that the “first entry” trigger cannot be applied mechanically.

A rigid interpretation ignores situations where:

• the claimant had no risk at the time of entry, and

• the risk emerged only later

This leads to arbitrary and disproportionate outcomes and undermines the purpose of refugee protection under IRPA.

2. Charter Compliance Is Mandatory

Relying on Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, we emphasized that individuals in Canada are entitled to section 7 protections, including a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

We also cited Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), where the Court held that Canada cannot remove individuals to a risk of torture without robust procedural safeguards.

A blanket denial of access to the RPD, despite credible risk, fails to meet these constitutional standards.

3. PRRA Is Not an Adequate Substitute

IRCC often relies on the availability of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). We argued that this is insufficient.

A PRRA:

• is paper-based

• does not guarantee an oral hearing

• lacks equivalent procedural safeguards

• is not designed for credibility-based determinations

Where credibility and personal risk are central, only a full RPD hearing is adequate.

4. Procedural Fairness Requires Context

We relied on Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) to argue that fairness must be assessed in light of individual circumstances.

In our clients’ case, their timeline reflected reasonable reliance on legal advice within Canada. Penalizing them for following that advice would be procedurally unfair.

5. Non-Refoulement Requires a Protective Interpretation

Finally, we invoked Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, which affirms that refugee protection must be interpreted broadly and in line with international obligations.

We argued that a rigid application of the one-year bar—without a merits-based hearing—creates a real risk of indirect refoulement.

Why This Matters to Refugee Claims

Procedural fairness letters are not mere formalities—they are often the last opportunity to prevent a claim from being screened out before it is ever heard.

Our position is clear:

The one-year bar cannot be applied in a way that denies access to protection where risk is real, credibility is central, and fundamental rights are engaged.

Looking Ahead

We have put forward these submissions to IRCC and are hopeful that the officer will reconsider our clients’ case in light of these legal and constitutional principles.

A fair and lawful interpretation of the legislation requires more than a strict reading of timelines—it requires a careful assessment of risk, rights, and Canada’s binding obligations.

Final Thoughts

IRCC is entitled to enforce statutory timelines. But those timelines must be applied lawfully, reasonably, and in accordance with the Charter.

Where they are not, they can—and should—be challenged.

At Apuntar Legal Services, we continue to advocate for interpretations of the law that uphold both the integrity of the system and the rights of those seeking protection.

If you or someone you know has received a procedural fairness letter related to a late refugee claim, timely legal advice is critical. The response you submit can determine whether your case is heard—or denied at the threshold.