In a world where immigration systems are under immense pressure, Canada’s refugee claim process has come under scrutiny for its methods of detecting fraudulent applications.
With a staggering backlog of 290,000 pending claims, the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) are tasked with ensuring the integrity of the system while processing applications efficiently.
A recent case highlighted the intense debate: are Canadian officials secretly using artificial intelligence (AI) to detect plagiarized refugee claims, despite official denials?
This article dives deep into the controversy, exploring the methods used to identify fraudulent claims, the potential role of AI, and the implications for Canada’s immigration system.
Table of Contents
The Growing Challenge of Plagiarized Refugee Claims
Canada’s refugee system is designed to offer protection to those fleeing persecution, violence, or war.
However, the system is not immune to abuse.
Some applicants, often with the aid of unscrupulous consultants, submit claims that are strikingly similar to others, raising red flags about plagiarism and fraud.
These plagiarized claims, which may copy narratives, documents, or entire stories from other applications, undermine the integrity of the process and clog an already overburdened system.
In May 2025, Edmonton-based immigration consultant Amandeep Singh encountered a case that brought this issue into sharp focus.
A refugee claimant approached Singh for assistance after their application was rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
The reason?
The claim was “nearly word-for-word” identical to several others submitted to the IRB.
Singh, who has long been aware of fraudulent practices in the immigration sector, was struck by the precision with which officials identified the similarities.
“It shows me that officials are likely using advanced technology, possibly artificial intelligence, to compare multiple cases simultaneously,” Singh remarked.
This observation has ignited a firestorm of speculation about the tools Canadian authorities are employing behind the scenes.
Official Denials and Ambiguity Surrounding AI Use
The IRB has been unequivocal in its stance: it does not use AI in its claim processing.
However, the IRCC and CBSA have been less transparent, offering vague responses about their methods for detecting plagiarized claims.
According to an IRCC spokesperson, “Officers consider all relevant information, including the claimant’s own statements and documentary evidence,” but no final decisions are made by AI, and tools do not refuse or recommend refusing applications.
Claims deemed eligible are referred to the IRB for further review.
This carefully worded statement neither confirms nor denies the use of AI, leaving room for speculation.
The lack of clarity from the IRCC and CBSA has fueled suspicions that advanced technologies, including AI, are being used to flag suspicious patterns in refugee claims.
With the volume of applications reaching unprecedented levels—over 5 million immigration decisions were made in 2022 alone—manual review of every claim is impractical.
Tools that can quickly identify similarities across thousands of applications would be a game-changer for officials struggling to manage the backlog.
How Plagiarism is Detected: Traditional Methods vs. AI
Historically, detecting plagiarized refugee claims has relied on human diligence and basic tools.
Sean Rehaag, director of the Refugee Law Laboratory at Osgoode Hall Law School, explains that decision-makers might notice similarities between claims, prompting further investigation.
For example, adjudicators may compare files from the same country or submitted by the same representative.
Patterns can also emerge during triage, where officials flag claims that appear suspiciously similar.
These methods, while effective, are time-consuming and rely heavily on human intuition and experience.
However, the scale of the problem demands more sophisticated solutions.
Anti-plagiarism tools, similar to those used in academic settings, have long been available to detect identical text across documents.
These tools could easily be adapted to scan refugee claims for duplicated narratives or boilerplate language.
Additionally, program integrity tools used by the IRCC and CBSA could identify patterns of fraud, such as repeated use of the same documents or stories.
The Role of AI in Canada’s Immigration System
While the IRB denies using AI, the broader Canadian immigration system has embraced automation to manage its workload.
Since 2017, amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) have authorized the use of electronic and automated systems for decision-making.
Tools like Chinook and Advanced Data Analytics (ADA) are already in use to streamline visa processing, particularly for temporary resident applications.
Chinook, a Microsoft Excel-based interface, extracts and simplifies information from the Global Case Management System (GCMS), allowing officers to review applications more efficiently.
ADA, meanwhile, triages applications by identifying routine cases for faster processing and flagging complex ones for further scrutiny.
Although the IRCC insists that these tools do not make final decisions, their use in sorting and analyzing applications demonstrates Canada’s growing reliance on technology.
In 2018, pilot projects using predictive analytics successfully triaged temporary resident visa applications from China and India, approving low-risk cases automatically while routing complex ones to human officers.
These projects have since expanded, with ADA processing over one million applications and reducing assessment times by 87%.
Could similar technology be applied to refugee claims to detect plagiarism?
Ethical Concerns and Human Rights Implications
The potential use of AI in detecting plagiarized refugee claims has raised red flags among experts.
Critics argue that AI systems, if not carefully designed, can perpetuate biases and lead to unfair outcomes.
A 2018 report by the University of Toronto’s International Human Rights Program and Citizen Lab warned that automated decision-making in immigration could violate human rights, citing risks of bias, discrimination, and lack of transparency.
For refugee claimants, a false positive in an AI-driven system could result in wrongful rejection, exposing individuals to persecution or danger upon deportation.
Ebrahim Bagheri, director of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada’s program on responsible AI development, cautions that human officers may overly rely on AI tools, leading to erroneous rejections.
“Even if the system doesn’t make the final decision, it can influence officers’ judgments,” he said.
The lack of transparency about how these tools operate further complicates matters, as applicants may struggle to challenge decisions based on opaque algorithms.
The Case for AI in Refugee Claim Processing
Despite these concerns, proponents argue that AI could strengthen Canada’s immigration system by reducing fraud and easing the burden on officials.
With 290,000 pending refugee claims, tools that streamline processing and protect the system’s integrity are desperately needed.
The IRCC emphasizes that any AI tools used are subject to rigorous oversight, including Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIAs) to mitigate bias.
Regular reviews by experienced officers, legal experts, and data scientists ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights obligations.
However, without public disclosure about the tools in use, skepticism persists.
The Future of AI in Canada’s Immigration System
As Canada aims to welcome 500,000 immigrants by 2025, the pressure to modernize its immigration system will only grow.
AI offers a promising solution to manage high application volumes, but its use must be balanced with transparency and accountability.
The controversy surrounding plagiarized refugee claims highlights the need for clear communication from the IRCC and CBSA about their methods.
Are they using AI to detect fraud, or are traditional methods still sufficient?
Until officials provide definitive answers, speculation will continue to swirl.
Stay updated wih CTC News.
