20th March 2026BY Nihang Law

How Bill C-12 Could Affect Asylum Claims in Canada

Last updated: March 2026

Bill C-12 is not yet law, but it proposes major immigration changes, especially with respect to asylum claims in Canada. Most importantly, it would add a new rule making some refugee claims ineligible if they are made more than one year after first entry to Canada after June 24, 2020, and it would also target people who crossed from the United States between ports of entry and claimed asylum later.

The bill also proposes broad powers to suspend or terminate certain immigration applications and to cancel, suspend, or vary some immigration documents in the public interest. For Ontario readers, the biggest practical issue is timing: people already in Canada on temporary status may need urgent legal review before waiting longer.

For many people in Ontario, the fear is not abstract. It is the worker whose permit is expiring, the student whose home country has become more dangerous, the visitor who delayed seeking help because they hoped conditions would improve, or the family who crossed from the United States and thought there was still time to decide.

Bill C-12 matters because asylum claims in Canada may increasingly turn on who gets access to the Immigration and Refugee Board at all, not only what happens after a hearing starts. It also matters because the bill contains transitional language with retroactive effect tied to the earlier Bill C-2 timeline, which means some people may assume they are safe simply because they already filed or delayed under the old understanding. The safest approach is not to assume that today’s rules will remain available tomorrow.

If you are dealing with broader Canadian immigration matters, including refugee claims, temporary status, or judicial review, it is important to assess your options early

Quick Start: Pick Your Path

Worker or student in Ontario:

Review your first entry date to Canada and whether more than one year has passed. If your permit has expired or is close to expiring, you may also need to review whether you can restore your status in Canada.

Visitor in Ontario:

Assess whether a refugee claim delay may become a threshold problem.

Person who entered from the U.S. between ports of entry:

Review the current 14-day rule and how Bill C-12 could close that route.

Person with a pending or future asylum plan:

Preserve entry records, travel history, status documents, and evidence of risk now.

Employer or family supporting someone at risk:

Do not assume a work permit, study permit, or visitor status problem is separate from asylum timing.

Has Bill C-12 Already Become Law?

No. As of March 12, 2026, Bill C-12 has passed the House and the Senate stages, as seen on Parliament’s tracker, but it has not received Royal Assent. The official status is that it is back before the House of Commons for consideration of Senate amendments.

Since Bill C-12 has not yet become law, the key question is what may change if it receives Royal Assent. For people in Ontario considering an asylum claim, timing and eligibility could become much more important under the proposed rules.

Could Bill C-12 Block Asylum Claims in Canada After One Year?

Yes. Bill C-12 would add a new IRPA ineligibility ground for a claimant who entered Canada after June 24, 2020, and made the refugee claim more than one year after the day of entry. The bill also says that if there were multiple entries, the clock starts from the first post-June 24, 2020 entry.

This could become one of the most significant Bill C-12 changes for asylum claims in Canada, especially for Ontario-based temporary residents. The government’s own Bill C-12 materials say this “one-year” ineligibility would apply to anyone, including students and temporary residents, even if they later left Canada and returned. In other words, a person who first entered Canada on a study permit or work permit, lived in Ontario for more than a year, and only later decided to seek protection could face a threshold bar before the Refugee Protection Division ever hears the merits.

Just as important, the current Justice Laws version of IRP Section 101 does not presently contain this one-year bar. Current ineligibility grounds include prior rejected claims, prior ineligibility or withdrawal, a prior refugee claim in a country with information-sharing arrangements, refugee protection elsewhere, Safe Third Country issues, and certain inadmissibility grounds. Bill C-12 would add something new.

For many Bill C-12 asylum claims in Canada, the retroactivity point may be easy to miss. The proposed bill’s transitional clause says the new paragraphs 101(1)(b.1) and (b.2) would not apply to claims made before the day Bill C-2 was introduced, but would apply to claims made during the period from the introduction of Bill C-2 up to the day before Bill C-12 receives Royal Assent. Bill C-2 was introduced on June 3, 2025. That means timing analysis may require very careful review of claims made between June 3, 2025, and the eventual coming-into-force point.

Ontario is a particularly important place to watch this issue. In federal claimant data for January to June 2025, Ontario had 27,130 asylum claimants processed by CBSA and IRCC combined, compared with 19,620 in Quebec and 5,730 in British Columbia. Ontario’s high claimant volume suggests that these proposed changes could matter to many people already living, working, or studying here.

Figure 1: Ontario and Other Top Provinces for Processed Asylum Claimants

Nihang Law Insight

A common Ontario fact pattern is a person who entered lawfully, worked or studied for a significant period, and only later realized return may be unsafe because of political change, family violence, sexuality-based risk, religious persecution, or a new threat at home. Under Bill C-12, timing may become a threshold eligibility issue before the evidence of risk is even tested.

Would Bill C-12 Restrict Asylum Claims in Canada After an Irregular U.S. Entry?

Potentially yes. Under the current regulatory framework, the Safe Third Country Agreement applies to someone who crosses from the U.S. between ports of entry and claims asylum less than 14 days after entry. Bill C-12 would add a new ineligibility rule for claims made after that time limit, which could effectively close that route from both directions.

Today, the Safe Third Country Agreement generally requires refugee claimants to seek protection in the first safe country they reach, and Canada says the agreement applies at land border crossings and also after crossing between ports of entry if the claim is made less than 14 days after entry, subject to exceptions. The IRPR currently sets that 14-day rule in section 159.4(1.1). Bill C-12 would add a new proposed paragraph 101(1)(b.2) making a claim ineligible if the person entered along the Canada-U.S. land border at a place that is not a port of entry and claimed after the time limit in section 159.4(1.1).

That is why lawyers and claimants are focusing so closely on the wording. Under the present structure, the 14-day timing rule matters because it can determine whether the STCA bars the claim. Under Bill C-12, the same time limit becomes part of a second ineligibility path. The government’s CIMM materials describe this as the “14 days” ineligibility.

Current STCA exceptions still matter under existing law. Canada’s official STCA page identifies family-member, unaccompanied-minor, document-holder, and public-interest exceptions. But Bill C-12 leaves the details of exceptions to its new one-year and 14-day bars to future regulations, which means readers should not assume the future exceptions will mirror today’s framework exactly.

A useful case-law backdrop is the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2023 decision in Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, where the Court held that the regulations designating the United States as a safe third country did not infringe section 7 of the Charter, while also recognizing that individual relief may still exist in specific cases through the legislation’s “safety valves.” That does not decide Bill C-12’s legality, but it explains why the current STCA architecture is still operative today.

Scenario	Current law now	Bill C-12 if enacted	Practical Ontario impact
Claim made more than one year after first entry to Canada	No general one-year bar in current IRPA section 101	New proposed ineligibility if first entry was after June 24, 2020 and claim is made after one year	Inland workers, students, and visitors may face urgent timing issues
Irregular entry from the U.S. and claim made in less than 14 days	STCA generally applies, subject to exceptions	Still a problem under existing STCA framework	Immediate border timing remains critical
Irregular entry from the U.S. and claim made after 14 days	Current 14-day rule may leave some room depending on facts and exceptions	New proposed ineligibility after the 14-day time limit	The route many people thought existed may effectively disappear
Claim found ineligible	No IRB referral	Bill says officer must terminate processing; government says affected persons would have access to PRRA	Remedy may shift from IRB hearing to removal-stage risk process

The table above summarizes the present IRPA/IRPR framework and the key Bill C-12 proposals described in Parliament’s bill text and federal explanatory materials.

What Other Immigration and Asylum Powers Would Bill C-12 Create?

Bill C-12 is not only about refugee ineligibility. It would also let the Governor in Council, in the “public interest,” stop accepting some immigration applications, suspend or terminate processing of pending applications, and cancel, suspend, vary, or impose conditions on certain immigration documents. It would also reshape parts of the in-Canada asylum process.

On the immigration-document side, proposed sections 87.301 and 87.302 would allow orders dealing with applications for permanent resident visas, temporary resident visas, eTAs, work permits, study permits, and other documents. The bill says “public interest” may include matters such as administrative errors, fraud, public health, public safety, or national security. It also says the order may specify whether fees are repaid, and if they are repaid, that repayment is without interest.

On the asylum-process side, Bill C-12 would eliminate the designated countries of origin regime, allow the Minister to specify the documents and information required to support an inland refugee claim, create abandonment and withdrawal rules before referral, and provide that if a claimant or appellant is not physically present in Canada, the RPD or RAD may be prevented from proceeding or may have to treat the matter as abandoned in some circumstances. If the person voluntarily returns to the country of alleged persecution before decision, the bill would require abandonment findings in specified situations.

Legal Perspective

For consumers, the key lesson is that Bill C-12 is not just a “border bill.” It is also a process bill. People often think their refugee case, work permit strategy, travel plans, and status compliance are separate tracks. Under this bill, those tracks may interact much more directly.

Why is the Government Presenting This as an Asylum-System Integrity Bill?

Official federal materials tie the bill to pressure on the asylum system and border management. IRCC and the IRB reported 173,000 asylum claim referrals in fiscal year 2024-2025, 78,700 RPD finalizations in the same period, and a large inventory of claims still waiting to move forward.

The IRB’s own 2025-2026 Main Estimates say the RPD received 173,000 asylum claim referrals in 2024-2025 and finalized over 78,700 cases, while as of March 31, 2025, the IRB had 175,800 claims ready to be heard plus another 105,500 incomplete claims awaiting security screening or other requirements. The same materials say the Board’s 2025-2026 funded processing plan would allow it to process up to 85,000 refugee claims.

IRCC’s May 2025 transition binder also said Canada had over 92,000 claims in 2022, over 144,000 in 2023, and over 173,000 in 2024, while claims were down in early 2025, including 19,660 total asylum claims between January 1 and February 28, 2025. Separately, IRCC’s asylum trends page says irregular border claims dropped from an average of 165 a day in March 2023 to 13 a day, and asylum claims from TRV holders fell 50% in January 2026 compared with January 2025.

Figure 2: Asylum System Pressure and Adjudication Capacity

What Happens if an Asylum Claim in Canada Becomes Ineligible Instead of Being Referred to the IRB?

What happens to asylum claims in Canada after an ineligibility finding?

Bill C-12 says that if a claim is determined to be ineligible under section 101, the officer must terminate processing of the claim. The government also says people affected by the new ineligibility grounds would have access to PRRA, but PRRA is not the same thing as a regular IRB refugee hearing.

That distinction matters a great deal. A normal eligible refugee claim goes to the Refugee Protection Division for determination. A PRRA is a separate protection mechanism used in removal contexts. Canada’s PRRA page says that in some cases, a person may be eligible to apply if they are being removed, and that the process exists to make sure a person is not removed to a place where they would face persecution, torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

The government’s Bill C-12 explainer specifically says that anyone affected by the new one-year or 14-day ineligibilities would have access to PRRA and, if the PRRA is made within regulatory timelines, the application would stay removal until IRCC makes a decision. But the general PRRA eligibility page also reminds readers that PRRA is not self-started: a person can only apply if a CBSA officer says they are eligible, and most people face a 12-month waiting rule after certain negative decisions.

By contrast, when a refugee claim is refused after being heard, the focus usually shifts to appeals and other post-refusal options. Sometimes the key issue is whether the decision itself was legally unreasonable or procedurally unfair, rather than whether the person can simply start a new process.

Nihang Law Insight

Many people hear “there is still PRRA” and assume nothing major changes. That is usually the wrong reaction. A shifted pathway can mean different procedure, different timing, and different litigation posture. Access to the IRB and access to PRRA are not interchangeable.

What Should You Do in Canada If You Think Bill C-12 May Affect You?

Why timing matters for Bill C-12 asylum claims in Canada

If you may be affected by Bill C-12 asylum claims in Canada, do not wait passively. Anyone who may need refugee protection should review their entry dates, U.S. border history, status documents, travel history, and risk evidence now. Bill C-12 makes timing and procedural posture more important, not less.

Step-by-Step Roadmap

1. Map every entry to Canada since June 24, 2020.

For the proposed one-year rule, Bill C-12 says the clock starts from the first post-June 24, 2020 entry, not necessarily the last re-entry.

2. Preserve proof of status and travel.

Keep passports, stamps, permits, visitor records, airline records, CBSA/IRCC correspondence, and any U.S.-Canada border documents.

3. Review any U.S. crossing facts carefully.

If there was an entry from the United States between ports of entry, the current STCA rules and the bill’s proposed new 14-day ineligibility both need close analysis.

4. Do not assume later re-entry resets the clock.

The bill expressly says it does not.

5. Prepare evidence of risk early.

The bill would let the Minister specify required documents and information for inland claims, and failure to provide required material or appear for examination can trigger abandonment procedures before referral.

6. Treat travel outside Canada as a serious legal issue.

Bill C-12 would create physical-presence consequences for pending claims and appeals, including mandatory abandonment in some voluntary-return scenarios.

7. Check parallel status strategies.

Work permit, study permit, visitor restoration, H&C, or other pathways may need to be reviewed together rather than separately.

What Common Mistakes Are People Making Right Now?

The biggest mistakes are factual assumptions and delay. People are confusing a pending bill with an enacted law, assuming their latest re-entry date is what matters, treating PRRA as equivalent to an IRB hearing, and overlooking how travel or U.S. border history can change the analysis.

Assuming Bill C-12 is already in force because it has passed major parliamentary stages.
Waiting to “see what happens” instead of checking whether the one-year timing issue may already matter to strategy.
Using the most recent re-entry date instead of the first post-June 24, 2020 entry.
Thinking the 14-day U.S. route will remain available if the bill becomes law.
Assuming PRRA is the same as receiving a refugee hearing before the IRB.
Leaving Canada or planning travel without reviewing the proposed physical-presence rules.
Treating asylum timing, temporary status, and document issues as separate problems when Bill C-12 connects them more closely.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Bill C-12 in force today?

No. As of March 20, 2026, Parliament’s official tracker says Bill C-12 is still at the House of Commons stage for consideration of Senate amendments. That means it should be discussed as a proposed change, not as a rule already governing refugee claims today. For that reason, people considering asylum claims in Canada should be careful not to assume the current rules will remain unchanged.

Does Bill C-12 affect workers, students, and visitors in Ontario?

Potentially yes. The government’s own explanation says the proposed one-year ineligibility would apply to anyone, including students and temporary residents, regardless of whether they later left and returned to Canada. For Ontario readers, that is one of the most important proposed consequences.

What if I first entered Canada in 2021, left, and returned in 2025?

Under Bill C-12’s proposed wording, the one-year clock would run from your first entry after June 24, 2020. It would not reset simply because you left and came back later. That is why exact travel chronology matters so much in these files.

What if I already made my refugee claim before June 3, 2025?

Bill C-12’s transitional provision says the new one-year and 14-day bars would not apply to claims made before the day Bill C-2 was introduced. Parliament’s record shows Bill C-2 was introduced on June 3, 2025.

Is PRRA the same as a refugee hearing?

No. PRRA is a separate protection process linked to removal. Canada says PRRA is used to assess risks such as persecution, torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and you can only apply if CBSA tells you that you are eligible.

Can I leave Canada while my claim or appeal is pending?

Under Bill C-12’s proposed physical-presence provisions, that could create serious problems. If a claimant voluntarily returns to the country of alleged persecution before decision, the bill would require abandonment in some situations, and if the person is not physically present in Canada the RPD or RAD may not proceed.

Does Bill C-12 only affect asylum claims?

No. The bill also contains proposed “public interest” powers over immigration applications and documents, including the ability to stop accepting certain applications, suspend or terminate processing, and cancel, suspend, vary, or impose conditions on certain documents such as visas, eTAs, work permits, and study permits.

Will there be exceptions to the new one-year and 14-day rules?

Possibly, but not yet in a way readers should rely on. Bill C-12 creates regulation-making powers for exceptions to the new proposed paragraphs 101(1)(b.1) and (b.2). Until the legislative process is complete and any regulations are known, assumptions about future exceptions would be unsafe.

Key Takeaways and How Nihang Law Can Help

Bill C-12 is not law yet, but it is important because it would change who gets access to the refugee system and could also expand executive control over immigration applications and documents. For many Ontario readers, the most important questions are these: When did you first enter Canada? Did you ever cross from the U.S. between ports of entry? Have you delayed claiming protection? Are you relying on temporary status while conditions in your home country worsen?

The practical takeaway is simple: timing may become decisive. For many Bill C-12 asylum claims in Canada, the outcome may depend less on when a person decides to seek help and more on whether the law still allows the claim to be heard at all.

Waiting could carry more legal risk than many people realize. If you are in Ontario and think Bill C-12 may affect your immigration or asylum options, Nihang Law’s immigration team can review your status history, entry dates, claim timing, border facts, and available protection pathways and help you decide on the safest next step for your specific situation.

Reminder: This is a developing situation. Do not rely on general online summaries alone where deadlines, prior entries, inadmissibility, previous claims, or U.S. border facts may change the answer.