# Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR ss. 28-52 - Conduct of Examination
## IRPR ss. 28-52

The text of the relevant sections of the regulation read:

## IRPR s. 41 - Direct back
### Commentary

Canada and the US have both employed what is termed the "direct back policy", which is related to, but distinct from the Safe Third Country Agreement. The "direct back policy” refers to the process whereby an asylum seeker approaches a port of entry at a time when border officials are unable to process the claim and the asylum seeker is returned to the other country (primarily, returned to the U.S. from Canada) after having been given a scheduled time to return for an interview. Prior to 21 May 1986, claimants arriving from the United States to claim refugee status remained temporarily in the United States until a Canadian immigration inquiry could be scheduled. On 21 May 1986, a blanket admission policy was introduced, allowing individuals to wait inside Canada for determination of their claim, or to receive an automatic permit to remain and work, depending on their country of origin. From then on, until 2003, the direct back policy was used only in exceptional cases. However, it was used enough that policies considered its implications, for example a 1989 pamphlet entitled The backlog clearance process: Refugee claims made in Canada before January 1, 1989 described the Refugee Claimants Designated Class Regulations as applying to persons who were in Canada before January 1, 1989 or, prior to that date, must have been directed back to the United States to await an immigration inquiry scheduled after January 1, 1989. In 2003, after the Safe Third Country Agreement was signed, but before it was implemented, the direct back policy was used as there was a large and sudden influx of persons arriving from the United States who wanted to lodge their claims in Canada before the entry into force of the Safe Third Country Agreement. The procedure prompted a complaint in 2004 by several national and international organizations to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The UNHCR subsequently criticized this policy on the basis that many claimants were not allowed to subsequently re-enter Canada to attend their scheduled interviews, writing in a report on the subject that "This has been especially problematic for asylum-seekers directed back from Canada to the United States, as a number were detained in the United States and unable to attend their scheduled interviews." Canadian authorities stated that they largely phased out the use of “direct back policies” as of August 2006, and going forward, they would be used only in exceptional cases. See the 2007 amendments to Canadian policy manuals for details regarding the current parameters of Canada's direct back policy. The “direct back policy” was revived again during the Covid-19 pandemic as part of the implementation of an Order-in-Council restricting travel into Canada.
See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 159 - Safe Third Countries#The "Direct Back Policy".

## IRPR s. 50.1 - Designation of unreliable travel documents
### Commentary

See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 3-13 - Information and Documents to be Provided#RPD Rule 11 - Documents Establishing Identity and Other Elements of the Claim.
See also the following list of unreliable travel documents: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2010/190-march-12-2010.html which states that:
   The following are not considered travel documents for the purposes of subsections R50(1) or R52(1):
   * Any passport purporting to have been issued by Somalia;
   * Non-machine readable passports issued by the Czech Republic;
   * Temporary Passports issued by the Republic of South Africa; and
   * Provisional Passports issued by Venezuela.

## References

* ↑ Citizenship and Immigration Canada, A Partnership for Protection: One Year Review, Executive Summary (November 2006) at 13.
* ↑ Alan Nash, International Refugee Pressures and the Canadian Public Policy Response, Discussion Paper, January 1989, Studies in Social Policy, page 51.
* 1 2 Kelley, Ninette, and Michael J. Trebilcock. The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010 (Second Edition). Print. Page 444.
* ↑ Employment and Immigration Canada, The backlog clearance process: Refugee claims made in Canada before January 1, 1989 (pamphlet), 1989, document IM 059/12/89, Cat. No. MP23-109/1989, ISBN 0-662-57178-9.
* ↑ Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Refugee Law After 9/11: Sanctuary and Security in Canada and the US, UBC Press, 2020, ISBN 9780774861502, page 211.
* ↑ Canadian Council for Refugees, Closing the Front Door on Refugees: Report on the Safe Third Country Agreement, Six Months after Implementation, August 2005, <https://ccrweb.ca/files/closingdoordec05.pdf> (Accessed August 23, 2020), at 23.
* ↑ Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229 (CanLII), [2009] 3 FCR 136, par. 95, <http://canlii.ca/t/1z69f#par95>, retrieved on 2020-03-22.
* ↑ Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229 (CanLII), [2009] 3 FCR 136, par. 96, <http://canlii.ca/t/1z69f#par96>, retrieved on 2020-03-22.
* ↑ Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, House of Commons, "Testimony of Francisco Rico-Martinez", 39th Parl, 1st Sess (February 8, 2007) at 7.
* ↑ Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, ENF-4: Port of Entry Examinations, Dated 2019-08-15 <https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf> (Accessed March 22, 2020) at, inter alia, page 5.
* ↑ Nicholas Keung, Why choosing the wrong ‘door’ may have cost this man his chance to claim asylum in Canada and rejoin his wife, Toronto Star, April 23, 2021, <https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2021/04/23/why-choosing-the-wrong-door-may-have-cost-this-man-his-chance-to-claim-asylum-in-canada-and-rejoin-his-wife.html> (Accessed April 25, 2021).