When a 26-year-old Haitian mother and her young daughter crossed into Quebec from the United States through forest trails on a freezing night in January, she had dreams of a fresh start in Canada.
The woman was leaving behind a country she felt no longer wanted her and thought Canada would be different.
But soon after she arrived, a new federal law put a crimp in her plans to claim asylum.
The legislation retroactively changes the rules for refugees, leaving her in what advocates describe as a legal limbo.
“I don’t want to panic,” said the mother, “but the (new law) makes me feel like maybe this is just the way it is when you are a migrant, you are unwanted wherever you go, even in Canada. It happens bit by bit, in the (United States), I felt completely unwanted.”
The Canadian Press interviewed the Haitian mother several times before and after she arrived in Quebec and agreed not to name her because she was afraid going public could affect her daughter’s life in Canada.
The woman is among thousands of migrants who have crossed irregularly into Canada from the United States and are now deemed ineligible to make asylum claims under the new federal law, Bill C-12, adopted on March 26, two months after she arrived in Quebec. Many have braved harsh conditions in making the trek, risking their lives, while some have even died.
“It was dangerous,” the woman told The Canadian Press. “I’m aware that it was risky. I put not only my life in danger, but also my daughter’s.”
Since the law came into force, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has sent an estimated 30,000 letters to claimants informing them they may be ineligible for a refugee hearing and could be required to leave the country.
The law applies to anyone who crossed irregularly into Canada — outside official ports of entry — after June 24, 2020. Some of them may be allowed to remain temporarily if they cannot be returned without facing serious risks in their country of origin, but without a clear path toward permanent status.
“These letters are sending people into a panic,” said Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, an advocacy group. “People are being pushed into uncertainty immediately after arrival, with very few clear options available to them.”
The Canada—U. S. Safe Third Country Agreement requires asylum seekers to request protection in the first safe country they reach. This means someone coming from the U.S. is typically barred from crossing into Canada to file a refugee claim. Certain exceptions exist, however, including for unaccompanied minors and for migrants who avoid detection for at least 14 days after they crossed irregularly.
The new law removes this option altogether.
The woman has not yet received a letter, but said she was anxious about what happens next.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said the changes are intended to improve efficiency.
“This promotes fair, personalized, and case-by-case decision-making when assessing eligibility,” Isabelle Dubois, a spokesperson for the federal department, wrote in an email.
The changes, Dubois said, will “ease pressure on the asylum system” and “discourage misuse of asylum pathways as a shortcut to immigration,” while maintaining compliance with Canada’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Frantz André, a retired businessman who founded a Montreal-based migrant advocacy group, has also been affected by the law. André had helped the mother file her asylum claim when she first arrived in Quebec in January and has done the same for many other asylum seekers. He said he receives daily calls from people needing help.
But now, due to the new law, he tells people seeking help to call a lawyer.
This is because the growing number of people who are deemed ineligible for asylum claims could receive a removal order that is more complicated to challenge.
Montreal-based immigration lawyer Julia Green says migrants can appeal the order by participating in a process called a pre-removal risk assessment, but it requires gathering a lot of evidence in a short period of time.
“It requires legal expertise to present a case on paper within 30 days in a way that is coherent and supported by sufficient evidence,” said Green.
Sreenivasan noted that there are limited appeal options in this process and no in-person hearings. This is a major difference from the usual process in front of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which is ”a purpose-built, independent body that weighs evidence and hears cases,” Sreenivasan added.
Green also noted that success rates are significantly higher at the Immigration and Refugee Board, where cases are heard in person. Based on her experience, Green estimates that about 80 per cent of cases are accepted by the review board, compared with roughly half that rate in pre-removal risk assessments.
The Haitian woman who arrived in January doesn’t have access to this assessment process because Canada imposed a moratorium that would prevent her from being deported to Haiti due to ongoing violence and instability in the Caribbean nation.
This leaves her in limbo, without any status in Canada, being unable to leave or sponsor any family members, according to Green.
In the meantime, André has helped her apply for a temporary work permit, and she’s awaiting the decision.
She didn’t want to disclose where she lives, but she said she would not be able to stay there indefinitely.
“It’s the uncertainty for me that is the hardest thing to handle,” said the mother. “I’m not able to settle down yet.”
One of the only longer-term options available is an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, according to Green, a process that can take years.
If it were safe, said the mother, she would return to Haiti. “I pray every day for the situation to improve. My family is there.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published on May 12, 2026.
By Charlotte Glorieux | Copyright 2026, The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
