Immigration Court Cases Have Quadrupled Since 2020. Is Automation to Blame?

This is according to reporting from The Canadian Press.

Some immigration lawyers are questioning whether automation tools could be causing more immigration applications to be incorrectly or unfairly refused, resulting in more court challenges. However, the data paints a nuanced picture.

IRCC disputes that automation is driving the surge in litigation. The department says artificial intelligence plays no role in immigration decision-making. IRCC maintains that refusals are made by trained officers after a full human review.

So, what’s going on here?

Automation may be part of the story, but it’s not the only possible explanation. Higher application volumes, staffing issues at IRCC, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), and Canada’s reduced immigration targets may all be contributing to the rise in court challenges. Plus, while the number of court filing has increased, the percentage of applications actually being granted review has not meaningfully changed in recent years. This means, there isn’t enough evidence to prove that the quality of immigration decision-making has changed significantly.

Still, the debate raises an important question for newcomers and applicants. How much should applicants know about how their applications are being assessed?

Immigration Court Cases Are Rising Rapidly

In 2020, about 6,400 immigration cases were brought to Federal Court. This is according to reporting from the Canadian Press. More than 28,000 were filed in 2025, and more than 6,600 were filed in the first quarter of 2026 alone. That’s a 400 percent increase over six years.

These filings come from decisions made by both IRCC and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Most of these proceedings are applications for leave and judicial review, a process that allows applicants to ask the Federal Court to review an immigration-related decision.

This means an applicant is asking the Court to review whether an immigration decision was fair or correct in the fact and law. It is not the same as a full appeal of the original application, and the Court does not simply replace the immigration department’s decision with its own. Judicial review is an important option for applicants who believe their case was refused incorrectly or unfairly.

It’s also important to distinguish between filing an application for leave and judicial review vs. actually having that application heard by the Court.

Most immigration judicial reviews begin with an application for leave. At this stage, a Federal Court judge reviews the file and determines whether there is an arguable issue worth hearing. If leave is denied, the case ends. If leave is granted, the judicial review proceeds.

As a result, a rise in applications for leave and judicial review does not necessarily mean the Court is finding fault with a larger share of immigration decisions.

Immigration cases naturally make up a larger share of the Federal Court’s work than they would in a provincial court. According to Federal Court statistics, immigration and refugee matters represented 82 percent of pending Federal Court files as of March 31, 2026, compared to only 60 percent of pending Federal Court files as of March, 2020.

Why Some Lawyers Are Looking at Automation

The Canadian Press spoke with immigration lawyers who say they have seen a decline in the quality of some IRCC refusal decisions.

Ottawa immigration lawyer Jacqueline Bonisteel told The Canadian Press that IRCC’s use of technology and automation tools means “a human officer isn’t spending as much time with the files as they once did.” She also said that refusal decisions increasingly contain “canned lines” and show “no sign of engagement with the evidence.”

Other lawyers pointed to Chinook, an IRCC tool that’s been in use for several years. Government documents describe Chinook as a Microsoft Excel-based tool. Chinook is meant to “simplify the visual representation” of client information. The same documents say Chinook does not use AI or make decision recommendations.

Chinook is often discussed alongside AI, but the two raise different questions. A tool that organizes information is different from a tool that makes recommendations. For applicants, the broader debate is about automation and decision-making processes.

This is where the public conversation can get messy. Many people hear “AI in immigration” and imagine a computer independently approving or refusing applications. That is not what IRCC says is happening.

Taous Ait, press secretary for Immigration Minister Lena Diab, told The Canadian Press that IRCC’s AI and advanced analytics tools work under human oversight at all times. She said these tools help with tasks such as “triaging applications, identifying routine cases, generating summaries for officers” and responding to client questions through chatbots.

“AI plays no role in decision-making on immigration applications,” Ait said. “As a matter of fact, all refusal decisions are made by trained officers following a full human review.”

IRCC’s AI Strategy, released earlier this year, says the department may use AI to perform administrative tasks, inform program operations, identify anomalies, match data, make assessments, recommend options, and flag “straightforward, low-risk files” for expedited officer decision. The strategy also says IRCC tools do not refuse or recommend refusing applications.

That is an important safeguard. But – it does not end the debate. For many lawyers and researchers, the question is not just “Is AI recommending a refusal?” but also “How are these technologies informing an officer’s recommendation to refuse?”

Automation is not new in Canadian immigration. Canada has been experimenting with automation tools since at least 2014. Because immigration decisions can have serious consequences, these automated processes need to be transparent and fair to immigration applicants.

Is There Evidence That Automation Is Causing More Court Cases?

Not conclusively. Federal Court statistics add an important layer of complexity. While applications for leave and judicial review have increased dramatically since 2020, the proportion of cases granted leave appears to have remained stable.

Court data reviewed by Moving2Canada shows that the percentage of cases granted leave has remained similar when comparing 2020 and 2025. Roughly 9 to 12 percent of immigration and refugee filings were granted leave in both years.

In other words, more applicants are challenging immigration-related decisions, but the available data does not show a comparable increase in the proportion of cases proceeding to a full judicial review. That doesn’t disprove concerns about automation or decision-making quality. But – it does suggest that rising court filings alone are not enough to conclude that immigration decisions are becoming less fair or less accurate.

There is a clear increase in immigration cases going to Federal Court. There is also clear evidence that IRCC is using more automation and AI tools. But those two facts do not prove that automation is causing the rise in court cases. As any Statistics 101 student will tell you: correlation does not equal causation.

Many lawyers believe automation is contributing to more refusals and more judicial reviews. But – IRCC says the increase in litigation cannot be attributed to a single factor.

Other Factors Could Also Be Contributing to the Increase in Court Cases

Automation may be part of the story, but it should not be treated as the only possible explanation. Canada’s immigration system has been under enormous pressure in recent years. In 2022 and 2023, permanent resident targets reached historically high levels. At the same time, temporary resident numbers grew sharply. As a result, IRCC faced a record-high processing backlog of 2.1 million applications.

More applications mean more decisions. More decisions usually mean more refusals. More refusals can lead to more judicial reviews.

In the years following those record highs, Canada has lowered its immigration targets. Since 2024, the federal government has reduced permanent resident targets. The government is also actively working to reduce the share of temporary residents in Canada. With fewer admissions spaces available, applicants face a more competitive system.

IRCC also faced significant staffing cuts in 2025 despite the pressure to process high numbers of applications. If immigration officers are forced to make decisions faster with fewer resources, it’s possible for the administrative burden to shift from IRCC and the IRB to the Federal Court. There are only 44 Federal Court judges responsible for handling the dramatic increase in cases – resulting in major delays in hearings.

None of these factors disproves the concerns about automation. But – they do make it harder to claim that automation is the single cause of the increase in litigation.

Why Transparency is Critical in Immigration Decisions

The clearest takeaway from the rise in immigration cases at Federal Court is that immigration applicants, lawyers, and courts need better visibility into how technology is being used by IRCC.

How exactly is AI helping immigration officers to review applications? How does Chinook triage immigration applications? And, what’s lost in this process? These are systems that applicants deserve to understand when applying for Canadian immigration.

In Bots at the Gate, the authors recommended that the federal government publish a complete and ongoing report. This report would detail all automated decision systems used in Canada’s immigration and refugee system.

The recommendations speak directly to the concerns being raised today. Faster processing is important, but applicants want confidence that decisions are fair.

The Federal Court data ultimately points to two separate questions.

The first is whether more applicants are challenging immigration decisions. The answer is clearly yes.

The second is whether the quality of immigration decision-making is declining. That question is harder to answer. While lawyers have raised concerns about automation, court statistics alone do not show that a larger share of challenges are being granted leave by judges.

That means the debate over automation remains largely a debate about transparency, accountability, and process rather than a settled conclusion about decision-making quality.

How Should Immigration Applicants Account for Automation?

For most applicants, this debate does not change the basic advice. Submit a complete, accurate, and well-documented application.

If IRCC is using tools to triage and summarize applications, then clarity matters even more. Applicants should make it easy for an officer to understand their eligibility, their supporting evidence, and the purpose of their application.

Applicants looking to submit a strong application, can work with a professional. Consider book a consultation with a regulated Canadian immigration consultant:

The AI and automation debate is likely to continue as IRCC expands its use of digital tools in the years ahead. These technologies are now part of Canada’s immigration system. And – applicants want to know how technology factors into immigration decisions.