cs.CYOct 21, 2026

Gender, Sexual Orientation, and the One-Year Refugee Bar: A Computational Study of Bill C-12 and Canadian Refugee Adjudication

Authors: Sean Rehaag

Organizations: Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University · Director, Refugee Law Lab · Co-Director, Access to Algorithmic Justice · Project Director, Algorithmic Justice for Refugees Research Network

Abstract

In March 2026, Bill C-12 amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make refugee claims ineligible for referral to the Refugee Protection Division where they are made more than one year after the claimant's first entry to Canada. Affected claimants are diverted to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), which is typically decided by an immigration officer on a paper record, with no guaranteed oral hearing, no appeal on the merits, and no automatic stay of removal pending judicial review. The government defended the bar partly on the premise that genuine refugees claim promptly. Critics countered that late claims are concentrated among vulnerable groups, particularly people fleeing persecution based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression (SOGIE). This article tests those competing premises. Using artificial intelligence tools, checked through human review, it examines nearly 29,000 published decisions of the Refugee Protection Division, the Refugee Appeal Division, and the Federal Court from 2006 to 2025. The results of this study demonstrate that, first, while most claimants claim within a year, roughly one in nine in the published record does not, and gender and SOGIE claims are significantly overrepresented among these late claims. Second, among late claims, refusals of gender and SOGIE claims are more likely than refusals of other claims to be overturned on appeal or judicial review. Late claims on other grounds, by contrast, fare somewhat worse on review than timely claims. The one-year bar therefore removes the hearing, the appeal, and the stay from the late claimants for whom those safeguards have been doing the most work. The article recommends repealing the bar or, failing that, adopting exemptions, procedural protections, and greater transparency in PRRA decision making.

Explore similar work

Jun 11, 2026

"Is This Not Enough?": Asymmetries in Institutional Accountability and Collective Sensemaking in the Case of Canada's Algorithmic Visa Triage System

This paper examines how algorithmic accountability in Canada's visa system is articulated institutionally and experienced by applicants across borders. We analyzed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)'s Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) for the temporary resident visa (TRV) triage system using the algorithmic decision-making adapted for the public sector (ADMAPS) framework and analyzed Reddit discussions among applicants using a mixed-methods approach. We show that while institutional artifacts emphasize transparency, procedural safeguards, and bounded impacts, applicants engage in collective sensemaking to interpret opaque decisions, often relying on peer knowledge amid uncertainty. We identify three asymmetries between how institutional accountability is structured and how people perceive the process: epistemic asymmetry in access to decision logic, jurisdictional asymmetry in exposure shaped by geopolitical positioning, and temporal--relational asymmetry in how waiting and uncertainty are experienced. We emphasize why it is important to shift attention from institutional design to the uneven distribution of experiences with public-sector algorithmic governance. Together, these contributions demonstrate how algorithmic governance systems in the context of transnational migration produce structured asymmetries not captured by institutional disclosure frameworks, and how extending ADMAPS can account for those uneven translations of accountability.
Sep 15, 2026

Beyond the Name: Demographic Leakage in De-Identified Résumés and Evaluation Artifacts in LLM Bias Audits

De-identified résumé screening assumes that redacting explicit fields prevents ethnocultural inference; however, recent audits attribute residual leakage to declared languages. We investigate whether eliminating language fields resolves this leakage across nine open-weight models and 620 counterfactual résumés. By holding language attributes strictly identical, we isolate unstructured prose across five ethnocultural conditions and three cue-salience tiers. Target-group recovery averages 0.757 overall and saturates at 1.000 under high salience, demonstrating that non-language prose sustains demographic inference. Crucially, models diverge only under faint cues (0.086-0.690), establishing salience as an essential evaluation axis. Furthermore, pairwise LLM-as-a-judge outcomes are highly sensitive to evaluation design: forbidding ties yields an apparent selection-rate ratio of 0.39 alongside strong position and content effects, whereas permitting ties produces near-universal ties for most models (≥94%\ge94\%). Downstream scoring shows only very small between-condition differences, highlighting the need to distinguish demographic signals recoverable from résumé content from effects introduced by the evaluation protocol.
May 20, 2026

RefusalBench: Why Refusal Rate Misranks Frontier LLMs on Biological Research Prompts

Frontier large language models are increasingly deployed as orchestration backbones for biological research workflows, yet no shared evidence base exists for comparing their refusal behaviour on legitimate research prompts. RefusalBench, introduced here, is a matched-triple benchmark of 141 prompts in 47 bundles that holds task framing constant while varying only biological risk tier (benign, borderline, dual-use), enabling tier-conditioned comparisons robust to subdomain confounding. A 15-prompt should-refuse positive-control module establishes per-model calibration floors; three models fail to refuse even these prompts. Across 19 frontier models in the May 2026 snapshot, strict refusal rates span 0.1% to 94.6% on identical prompts. Jurisdiction does not predict refusal in this snapshot (Mann-Whitney U, p = 0.393; EU n = 1, US bimodal); provider identity does, with Anthropic's API stack predicting refusal at OR = 21.03 (95% CI: 14.58-30.34 prompt-clustered; 5.70-77.55 under model-clustered GEE). This effect is best read as access-path-level rather than model-weight-level: 99.8% of Anthropic's strict refusals carry the same safety_policy adjudicated reason code, consistent with a small set of canonical refusal templates rather than case-by-case model reasoning. Strict refusal rate misranks safety calibration: Grok 4.20 achieves the highest tier discrimination (Youden's J = 0.787) while ranking only seventh by overall refusal rate, and Claude Opus 4.7's J dropped 65% from prior versions with no improvement in dual-use detection. Nine of 18 frontier models exhibit a hedge-but-help partial-compliance pattern at dual-use tier that binary refusal metrics cannot detect.