By Randolph Hahn, July 3, 2026
Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) decides who receives refugee protection — and for many successful claimants, a pathway to permanent residence and citizenship. Those decisions depend in part on country information the IRB makes available to its decision-makers as authoritative background material.
That is why one name appearing in the IRB’s National Documentation Packages should alarm anyone who expects Canada’s refugee system to rely on balanced and credible sources: the highly controversial Francesca Albanese, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Albanese has become one of the world’s most polarizing UN officials. She has been sanctioned by the United States, condemned by several democratic governments, and publicly rebuked by Canada itself. In 2024, Canada’s Permanent Mission in Geneva described her remarks as “unacceptable and incompatible with her duty of impartiality” and added that “antisemitism has no place anywhere.”
Yet, while the Canadian government has distanced itself from Albanese, the IRB continues to include her in reports in its official country documentation for Israel and for what it characterizes as the Occupied Palestinian Territories. After experienced Canadian immigration lawyers formally challenged the decision, the Board reviewed the matter — and chose to keep her reports in place.
That leaves Canadians with an uncomfortable question: Why is the tribunal responsible for deciding who receives Canada’s protection continuing to present the work of someone the Canadian government itself has sharply criticized?
A Chorus of Condemnation
The United States imposed sanctions on Albanese in July 2025. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained at the time, “The United States has repeatedly condemned and objected to the biased and malicious activities of Albanese that have long made her unfit for service as a Special Rapporteur. Albanese has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism, and shown open contempt for the United States, Israel, and the West. That bias has been apparent across the span of her career ….” Earlier this year, France announced it would be calling for the immediate resignation of Albanese from her role. Albanese’s native Italy has weighed in to join those who condemn Albanese. Other countries that have condemned Albanese include Germany, the Netherlands, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Argentina, and Britain.
How about Canada?
In October 2024 Canada’s Permanent Mission in Geneva issued a statement declaring her remarks “unacceptable and incompatible with her duty of impartiality, probity and good faith” and went on to add that “antisemitism has no place anywhere.”
Moreover, when Albanese visited Canada not long after the above statement, by her own account she was “snubbed” by the Canadian government. According to Albanese, an invitation to speak to officials at Global Affairs Canada was abruptly withdrawn just before she arrived in Ottawa. A scheduled appearance before the House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee was also cancelled.
Singing a different tune: The Immigration and Refugee Board
So, Francesca Albanese has been sanctioned by the United States government, widely criticized by many European countries for her lack of objectivity, and snubbed by Canada.
All of which brings us back to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
As the IRB itself notes, it is Canada’s largest independent administrative tribunal. Included in its mandate is the responsibility of deciding who deserves refugee protection among the thousands of claimants who seek it each year. The IRB provides information that decision-makers may consult “as part of their work.” That includes “National Documentation Packages” that “are lists of public documents that provide information about conditions in specific countries.”
The most recent National Documentation Packages for Israel and for what the IRB categorizes as “Palestinian Territory, Occupied,” are dated August 7, 2025. They include reports by Albanese with titles such as “Genocide as colonial erasure” and “Anatomy of a genocide.”
One might assume this was simply an oversight. The IRB is a large organization and its National Documentation Packages contain hundreds of sources. It would not be surprising if senior officials were unaware that reports by Albanese had been included despite the IRB’s stated commitment to providing information “in a balanced and neutral manner.”
But that is not what happened.
The issue was brought directly to the attention of the IRB’s senior leadership, which reviewed the matter and chose to leave Albanese’s reports in place. Indeed, the Board responded by stating that responsibility for the Country of Information rests with the IRB’s Research Directorate, staffed by a group of “highly trained researchers” … and that these reports were included “following a thorough document assessment and adherence to the rigorous IRB methodology.” However, the inclusion of such material cannot be said to align with the purpose of the Country of Information packages to provide information “in a balanced and neutral manner.”
So where does that leave us?
Apparently, relying on the “expertise” of someone who has been sanctioned by the US, condemned by many European countries, and snubbed by Canada.
The IRB itself should revisit its decision to include reports from Francesca Albanese as if she is a credible expert; in doing so, it might review “the rigorous IRB methodology” employed by the IRB’s “highly trained researchers.”
Randolph Hahn is a partner with Garson Immigration Law and has practiced exclusively in citizenship and immigration law for many years. He is a former chair of the Citizenship and Immigration Section of the Ontario Bar Association and is the associate editor of the Immigration Law Reporter. He has authored many professional papers.
