Aisling Bondy, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, has argued that the Canadian government is becoming increasingly preoccupied with “getting the job done” through deportations, ultimately losing sight of whether the process remains fair or just.
Addressing recent figures from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Bondy noted that over 18,000 refugee claimants were deported between 2019 and 2024. This represents the highest volume of removals in more than a decade; a 55 per cent spike since 2019.
Paradoxically, the Canadian federal government spends upwards of $78 million annually to facilitate these departures.
Read also: Nigeria, Canada unveil fresh push on trade, security, migration ties
According to Bondy, the system has become automated and detached. In its haste to meet deportation targets and reduce costs, the government is “cutting corners” and making errors that could prove fatal.
“If we continue to prioritise the speed of removal over the fairness of the process, we risk transforming our borders into a revolving door that cares more about the numbers on a balance sheet than the lives of those seeking refuge,” Bondy stated. “Efficiency is a virtue in logistics, but in matters of life and death, justice must come first. Is this money being used to keep us safe, or just to make the government look ‘tough’?”
The myth of the “Internal Flight Alternative”
Bondy also criticised the “Internal Flight Alternative” (IFA), a legal concept where a judge acknowledges a claimant is at risk in their home country, then suggests they could simply relocate to another state or city within their own country.
“It is unrealistic for a judge to agree that a gang or government is pursuing a refugee, yet still rule: ‘I’m sure you’ll be fine if you just move to a different city across the country and hide there,'” Bondy remarked.
She argues that if a dangerous group is hunting an individual, moving to another city in the same country is rarely sufficient to ensure safety.
Bill C-12: “Deport first; ask questions later”
Bondy sounded the alarm regarding Bill C-12, a legislative proposal that would grant the government broader powers.
“For many, the government wants to stop letting people speak to a judge in person. They would just read a letter and decide,” she warned. Under this law, the government could deport an individual while a judge is still reviewing the case. If a mistake is later identified, it is often too late.
“Canada has a choice to make,” Bondy concluded. “We can be a country that treats immigration like a logistics problem, like moving boxes in a warehouse, or we can be a country that prioritises human rights.”
Impact on Nigerian refugee claimants
The surge in deportations has a profound impact on the Nigerian community, which consistently ranks as one of the top nationalities seeking asylum in Canada.
Nigerians fleeing persecution, whether due to insurgencies, perceution due to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or pro- Nigerian tensions, often find their claims rejected based on the “Internal Flight Alternative.”
Canadian officials frequently argue that a Nigerian claimant from Northern Nigeria could safely relocate to Lagos or Port Harcourt, ignoring the reach of non-state actors and the lack of state protection.
Read also: Canada to replace start-up visa with new entrepreneur pilot in 2026
Case study
As documented in the Canadian Center for Civil and Political Rights Case Centre https://share.google/0nHNnRImaBRqxjtJf
a 2015 case involved a Nigerian man who faced deportation despite credible threats of gender-based violence and ritualistic persecution in their home region.
He was an adherence to IPOB, and also living with HIV. Despite being granted asylum initially, his status was subsequently revoked following allegations of document forgery.
Canada’s subsequent decision to deport him was met with intense legal opposition. The claimant argued that repatriation would expose him to extrajudicial killing or torture due to his affiliation with the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB).
He further contended that Nigeria’s healthcare infrastructure could not provide the life-sustaining treatment required for his HIV, and that he would face severe social discrimination. However, the Canadian authorities maintained that his lack of credibility outweighed these concerns, leading to his unsuccessful bid to remain.
Allegations of procedural unfairness
Upon his forced return to Nigeria and subsequent re-entry into Canada, where he faced unrelated criminal charges, the claimant became a vocal critic of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) process.
He asserted that the system is fundamentally flawed, arguing it ignored vital evidence and failed to respect his original refugee designation. He alleged that he was denied adequate medical attention following reports of abuse during his deportation.
Human rights and confidentiality concerns
The Nigerian man asserted that his deportation constitutes a breach of Articles 6, 7, and 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
His arguments rest on several key pillars:
State complicity: He claims the Canadian government improperly shared his details with Nigerian authorities, who have reportedly handed him a life sentence in absentia, thereby violating the principle of confidentiality in asylum proceedings.
Health and persecution: He argues that the PRRA failed to account for the intersectional risks he faced as an HIV-positive individual, including potential targeting by both state actors and violent anti-LGBTQ+ groups.
Systemic bias: He has accused the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) of conspiracy, alleging they actively worked to undermine his legal standing and health while in custody.
Privacy violations: He maintains that the methods used to verify the Nigerian court judgment against him violated his right to privacy under Article 17 of the Covenant.
Read also: Canada unveils express entry for doctors, academics, healthcare workers
How refugee claimants can avoid deportation
To navigate the tightening Canadian system, Nigerian refugee claimants should take the following strategic steps:
Evidentiary precision: Do not rely solely on testimony. Provide “country condition” reports, police reports from Nigeria (if safe to obtain), and medical records that prove the risk is nationwide, not just local.
Challenge the IFA early: Proactively explain why relocating to another Nigerian city, for instance is not a viable option. Highlight why the “reach” of your persecutors extends across state lines.
File a PRRA (Pre-Removal Risk Assessment): If you are facing imminent removal, ensure your lawyer files a PRRA to highlight new risks that have emerged since your initial hearing.
Humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) Grounds: If your refugee claim is denied, apply for permanent residency on H&C grounds, focusing on establishment in Canada (employment, volunteering, and community ties).
Legal representation: Avoid ‘ghost consultants’. Ensure your representative is a licensed lawyer or a member of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC).
