Faux réfugiés you would translate as “bogus refugees”, in English?
That is a terminology that actually, I have to say, does not exist. It's a contradiction in terms. If you are a refugee, it means you are recognized as a refugee at the end of a process for which, by definition, you are genuine.
If you are not a refugee, you are still an asylum seeker. Asylum seekers are those who seek asylum. They may become refugees, they may become failed asylum seekers. But not all failed asylum seekers are fraudulent by nature. Some may become failed asylum seekers in good faith, genuinely. Let me give you an example.
Take a person who flees from domestic violence—possibly a woman, but not necessarily—and wants to get as far as possible from the abusive family. She arrives in Canada under bad counselling from friends and fails the asylum application because she has not sought national protection in the country she has fled from. In order to be a refugee, you have to prove that you sought national protection, but it was unavailable to you. This is very important in becoming recognized as a refugee.
That person will fail and she will be a failed asylum seeker, but I would not call her fraudulent. She didn't know. She was badly advised.
So the term “failed asylum seekers” may include fraudulent asylum seekers, I agree; but “failed asylum seekers” may also include those who made their applications in good faith and failed.