PACP - Recommendation #5: Examine Differential Outcomes in Processing Times Related to the Implementation of Automated Decision-Making Tools - December 5, 2023

Key Facts And Figures

• To cope with ambitious immigration levels in 2021, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) developed innovations and streamlined the processing of its immigration cases. One of the innovations was the development and implementation of an advanced analytics (AA) model for a subset of family cases.
• The objective of the AI tools, deployed in April 2021, is to identify routine Spouse or Common-Law Partner in-Canada Class (SCLPC) sponsorship applications for streamlined processing.
• The tool only automates the approval of the eligibility of some routine sponsors and principal applicants for in-Canada SCLPC applications, and it does not automate admissibility or final decision for any of the applications. All applications for which eligibility cannot be approved by the tool will receive a full individualized assessment by officers in accordance with standard practices, including an officer determining eligibility and screening for admissibility. Officers continue to make the final decision on each application. The tool never refuses applications nor does it recommend refusals.
• From the launch of the model in April 2021 until October 31, 2023, more than 63,500 SCLPC applications that were triaged by the model have been finalized.

Key Messages

• Given the AA model streamlined the less complex/routine cases, the Office of the Auditor General reports that the cases not being streamlined by the tool are unduly facing longer processing times.
• The Department has been monitoring the tool, however, and we will take more actions. IRCC will create a report to monitor the permanent resident processing times of applications currently benefiting from the use of automated decision-making tools and manual processing by the end of January 1, 2024. IRCC will evaluate whether differential outcomes in processing times, between applications where the tool makes an automated positive eligibility decision and applications where eligibility is decided by an officer, merit further action.
• If variations in processing times can be mitigated with additional resources, then IRCC will prepare a plan to reduce the disparity between processing outcomes by April 1, 2024.
• Full alignment is not expected or possible given that non‑automated cases are not automated because they often require additional efforts to process, and need a standard manual review, which can sometimes result in additional information being requested, checks with partners, or other activities.
• It is important to note that country‑specific conditions, the immigration policy of Quebec, and external factors (i.e. dependent children) beyond the Department’s control will continue to have an impact at the eligibility and admissibility stages of applications. (Note: Automated decision‑making tools are not being applied at the admissibility stage for this program.)

Supplementary Information

• The tools do not actively increase wait times since they do not put any application on hold nor prioritize routine applications for processing.
• Concerns about AI bias/discrimination: IRCC develops and uses data-driven technologies responsibly. As part of its compliance with the Treasury Board Directive on Automated Decision-Making, algorithmic impact assessments are completed to assess the new tools and measures are put in place to mitigate possible risks. These measures include an extensive review process for potential bias impacts and the ability of officers to overturn automated decisions.
• A team of experts, including decision makers, will continue to be involved throughout the process of developing and using future advanced data analytics systems at IRCC, including careful review for bias and discriminatory impacts. Changes to existing systems only happen with human oversight, testing and approval. IRCC is working to be a leader in the responsible use of data-driven technologies.
• IRCC works closely with the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) on the development of the Directive on Automated Decision-Making and related tools such as the Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA). IRCC strives to ensure compliance with the TBS Directive on Automated Decision-Making and has published more AIAs than the rest of the Government of Canada combined.

• Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP):

  The Auditor General has been (unclear) findings from two Pollara reports of racist outcomes in Canada's immigration system. Regional disparities continue to create longer processing times for those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Meanwhile, new AI tools discriminately double wait times for Haitian citizens. The (Government) said they would address regional disparities in 2016. But the Auditor General found they have done nothing. This is outrageous. People's lives are hanging in the balance. Will the government take immediate action to put in place an independent ombudsperson to end the systemic racism in IRCC?

  The tools help by automating certain tasks, so less time is spent on routine applications, ultimately allowing applications that require manual review to be reviewed by an officer sooner. All applications require both an eligibility assessment and an admissibility assessment before a final decision can be rendered by an officer. The tools help accelerate IRCC’s work by identifying routine applications for streamlined processing of the eligibility decision. These streamlined applications are then sent to an officer for a manual assessment of admissibility and to render a final decision on the application. The tools do not refuse nor recommend refusals.

  The tools do not directly increase wait times because they do not put applications on hold nor do they prioritize the routine applications for processing. Applications that are not automatically approved for eligibility by the tools are fully assessed by an officer for both eligibility and admissibility, in accordance with the steps performed throughout the normal course of processing.

  This manual review of the eligibility requirements by an officer is necessary for a wide range of reasons – it can be as simple as not having sufficient information provided by the applicant to allow the tools to streamline the application, to something more complex such as the review of applications containing foreign civil documents from certain regions that are encountered less frequently in the course of processing (e.g. birth certificates, adoption documents, marriage certificates etc.). Another element that makes an application apt for manual review is the presence of dependent children. This needs to be closely reviewed in order to ensure the child’s safety is safeguarded and the custody rights of the parents are respected. The requirement for manual review by an officer for an application’s eligibility assessment does not suggest to an officer that there is something adverse on the application so it will always be treated as a standard case.