Refugee Claim Declared Abandoned: How to Reopen It

By Sundeep S. Grewal, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation · Reviewed October 30, 2026

Published October 30, 2026

Short answer. If the Immigration and Refugee Board declared your refugee claim abandoned, your claim has ended. You can't make a new one, and your removal order takes effect 15 days after you are told. You can ask the RPD to reopen the claim under Rule 62, but only if you show the process was unfair to you, for example because a notice went to the wrong address or your representative failed you. Act within days: the Federal Court deadline is 15 days.

Lawgical Law Corporation‘s immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, apply to reopen abandoned refugee claims and RAD appeals and take these decisions to the Federal Court.

The same idea applies, under a different rule, to a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) appeal "dismissed for lack of perfection". RAD appeals have their own section below.

What the Board's letters say, and what each sentence means

These are the Board's standard sentences as they appear in letters and decisions in our files. Specific details are replaced with [..].

1. The warning on every Notice to Appear

2. The special hearing notice ("Notice to Appear – Abandonment of a Claim for Refugee Protection")

3. The abandonment decision

4. Decisions refusing to reopen

5. A decision allowing reopening

This is from a reopening that was allowed in our files (identifying details removed). In that case the Minister brought the application, which the rules allow (Rule 62(1)), because the claimant's documents had never reached the panel.

6. RAD appeals "dismissed for lack of perfection"

Why reopening needs a lawyer

Reopening almost never happens on its own. It runs alongside a Federal Court case: the Application for Leave and Judicial Review that must be filed within 15 days, and often a motion to stop removal. Only a lawyer can act in the Federal Court (Federal Courts Rules, r.119). With anyone else, you need a second representative for the court side, under a 15-day clock.

One lawyer, one file, every step:

• getting your full file from the IRB;
• the Federal Court application, filed within 15 days;
• the reopening application at the RPD or RAD;
• a request to CBSA to defer removal and, if needed, a Federal Court motion to stay it;
• notice to your former representative, when they are part of what went wrong.

If the reason your claim was abandoned is something your former representative did or failed to do, the rules require you to give them a copy of the reopening application first and prove you did (Rule 62(4)). Your new lawyer handles this for you.

Your options and the deadlines

The 15-day clock starts when you are notified, so the first days matter most. These options can run together: the reopening application must include a copy of any pending judicial review (Rule 62(5)).

What I do first. When someone brings me an abandonment decision or a RAD dismissal, I do two things right away:

1. I ask the IRB for the full file, so I can see exactly which notices were sent, where and when.
2. I file an Application for Leave and Judicial Review (ALJR) in the Federal Court within the 15 days.

I treat the ALJR as a requirement. The reopening application must include a copy of any pending court application, and if you didn't go to court, the Board asks why. That 15-day ALJR deadline is the one people miss most often.

The mistakes I see most:

• moving without giving the IRB and CBSA your new address;
• relying on a representative who never filed the Basis of Claim form or the RAD Appellant's Record;
• not attending the hearing because you feel "not ready".

Any one of these, on its own, has ended claims.

What happens if nothing is done. The removal order takes effect 15 days after the abandonment notice (IRPA s.49(2)). You can't make a second refugee claim (IRPA s.101(1)(c)). A pre-removal risk assessment is generally barred for 12 months after the abandonment (IRPA s.112(2)(b.1)).

Reopening an abandoned refugee claim at the RPD: the legal test

Before abandonment: the special hearing (IRPA s.168(1), RPD Rule 65)

The Board may declare a claim abandoned if the claimant is "in default": not appearing, not providing required information such as the Basis of Claim (BOC) form, or not communicating when asked (IRPA s.168(1)). Before it does, it must give you a chance to explain (Rule 65(1)).

• Timing: the special hearing is held within 5 working days after the missed BOC deadline (and you must bring the completed BOC) or after the missed hearing (Rule 65(2)–(3)).
• What the member weighs: your explanation and other relevant factors, including whether you are ready to start or continue (Rule 65(4)).
• Medical reasons: you must file an original, recent, legible medical certificate signed by a qualified practitioner. It must describe the condition without the diagnosis, say how it stopped you, and say when you can continue (Rule 65(5)–(6)). If you can't get one, explain your efforts and give corroborating evidence (Rule 65(7)).

After abandonment: reopening (RPD Rule 62)

• When: any time before the RAD or the Federal Court makes a final decision on the claim (Rule 62(1)).
• The threshold: the RPD "must not allow the application unless it is established that there was a failure to observe a principle of natural justice" (Rule 62(6)).
• Factors the RPD must consider: whether the application was made in a timely way and the reasons for any delay, and why you did not appeal or seek judicial review (Rule 62(7)). These factors are not the only ones (Huseen, below).
• Former representative blamed: give them a copy first and include a statement of how and when you did (Rule 62(4)).
• Second application: only with exceptional circumstances supported by new evidence (Rule 62(8)).

If your RAD appeal was dismissed, see the RAD section below.

What has persuaded the RPD and the Federal Court

• The notice never reached you, and the Board can't show it was sent. A presumption of receipt arises only once sending is proven, for example by registered mail records (Avci, 2024 FC 354).
• You told the authorities where you were. Where claimants reported their new address (to CBSA, not the IRB), the RPD had to deal with that evidence instead of brushing it aside (Reyes Chacon, 2024 FC 140).
• You never meant to abandon, and the Board's own delay contributed. The Court refused to let "ignorance of the law" end the analysis and said "the door should not slam shut on all those who fail to meet ordinary procedural requirements" (Huseen, 2015 FC 845).
• Your evidence was not considered. In our files, a reopening was allowed on that basis.
• Your former representative failed you. This can be a breach of natural justice, but it must be proven with evidence and the Rule 62(4) notice step must be followed.
• You filed on time, but the Board did not link it to your file. In our files, a RAD appeal "dismissed for lack of perfection" was reopened under RAD Rule 49 because the Appellant's Record had already been sent. The appeal was then decided on its merits.
• Strict technical rules are relaxed for people without a lawyer (Cervenakova, 2012 FC 525, para 64, applying Da Costa Soares, 2007 FC 190). But in our files the RPD refused to stretch this to missing a hearing the claimant knew about.
• Your former representative stayed on record but stopped acting. For example: the decision went to their portal, they never withdrew, and the family did not know a deadline was running. A counsel-failure argument needs facts like these, backed by sworn evidence and written notice to the former representative.

What has failed

• Being the "author of your own misfortune": ignoring CBSA notices, not filing the BOC and missing the special hearing (Aguirre Meza, 2022 FC 1275).
• No proof: the RPD had no evidence the BOC arrived on time, and evidence filed later in court could not fix that (Washa, 2021 FC 1299). Put everything in the reopening application.
• Not addressing the test. I have seen reopening refused where the application did not deal with Rule 62(6) and (7).
• Lack of a lawyer alone: in our files, this was not treated as a breach of natural justice.
• RAD deadlines missed by counsel without a real explanation: counsel's illness did not explain the delay while she was working, and the argument that counsel's errors were unfair failed because it was not raised at the RAD under Rule 49(4) (Masoud, 2019 FC 103).
• Staying away because you were "not ready" (in our files, while waiting for documents from home), with no request to change the date and no clear answer at the special hearing about when you would be ready.
• Emails to the Board that bounced, with no copy or delivery record kept.
• Blaming former counsel without written notice under the Practice Notice. In our files, the RPD found former counsel's conduct "both adequate and competent" because the record showed counsel had asked for a date change and attended a CBSA interview.
• Mistakes I have seen other applicants make in the reopening application itself: using the wrong rule (reinstatement instead of reopening), no affidavit, and not serving the Minister first.

What I put in every reopening application:

• a sworn declaration with a dated timeline of every step you took;
• proof that the Minister was served before filing;
• arguments on each factor in Rule 62(6) and (7) (Rule 49(6) and (7) at the RAD);
• a copy of the Federal Court application;
• written notice to the former representative, when they are part of the story.

What to gather now

• The abandonment decision and the notice of the special hearing (ask the IRB for your file if you don't have them)
• Proof of every address and contact change you sent, to whom and when
• Emails, texts or letters with your former representative
• A medical certificate that meets Rule 65(5)–(6), if health was a reason
• Your BOC form and evidence, so you are ready to proceed

Reopening a RAD appeal "dismissed for lack of perfection" (RAD Rule 49)

A RAD appeal is "perfected" when the Appellant's Record (your arguments and evidence) arrives. The deadline is 45 days after you receive the RPD's written reasons; the Notice of Appeal itself is due within 15 days. If the Record does not arrive in time, the RAD dismisses the appeal without reading your arguments. The fix depends on where you are:

What the RAD looks at

• When: any time before the Federal Court makes a final decision on the appeal (Rule 49(1)).
• The threshold: the same as at the RPD. There must have been a failure to observe a principle of natural justice (Rule 49(6)).
• Factors: whether you applied in a timely way, the reasons for any delay, and, if you did not seek judicial review, why not (Rule 49(7)).
• A pending Federal Court case: include a copy of it with the application (Rule 49(5)). Filing in court first does not count against you if you then apply to reopen promptly.
• Former representative blamed: give them a copy first and say how and when you did (Rule 49(4)).
• For an extension of time, show that you meant to appeal on time, that the appeal is arguable, that the delay is explained, and that no one is prejudiced.

What has worked in our files

• The Record was sent but never linked to the appeal. The Record went in with the extension application, and the RAD later dismissed the appeal as if nothing had arrived. A Rule 49 application set out each filing by date and pointed to the right to be heard. The appeal was reopened and decided on its merits.
• Former counsel stayed on record but stopped acting. They did not withdraw, the RAD sent everything to their portal, and the family did not know the Record was due. A Legal Aid merit assessment found a reasonable chance of reopening on these facts, provided the explanation is sworn and former counsel is notified under the Practice Notice.

RAD-specific mistakes to avoid

• Assuming the Record "must be there". When the RAD sets a new date for the Record, send it again with a cover letter, even if you sent it before.
• Waiting months after the dismissal. Timeliness is the first factor in Rule 49(7).
• Missing the decision because it went to a former representative's portal. Make sure the RAD has your current representative and address.

Federal Court cases

Each case below was read in full on the Federal Court's site before being cited. The Court reviews these decisions for reasonableness and does not decide the refugee claim itself.

FAQ

Can I make a new refugee claim after mine was declared abandoned? No. A claim is ineligible if an earlier claim was declared abandoned (IRPA s.101(1)(c)). Reopening the original claim is the route.

Can I appeal an abandonment decision to the RAD? No. The RAD hears appeals of decisions that allow or reject a claim. An abandonment decision goes back to the RPD (reopening) or to the Federal Court (judicial review).

Is there a deadline to apply to reopen? The rules set no fixed number of days, but the application must be made before the RAD or the Federal Court makes a final decision, and the RPD must consider whether it was timely and why any delay happened (Rule 62(1), (7)). The Federal Court deadline is 15 days.

Does applying to reopen stop my removal? No. A pending reopening application is not an automatic stay. If removal is scheduled, ask CBSA to defer it and, if refused, apply to the Federal Court for a stay.

I moved and never got the hearing notice. Is that enough? It can be, with proof. Show when and how you reported your new address, and to whom. The Federal Court has sent back decisions where the RPD did not deal with that evidence (Reyes Chacon, 2024 FC 140; Avci, 2024 FC 354).

My consultant or lawyer never filed my BOC form. Can I reopen? Possibly. Poor representation can amount to a breach of natural justice, but you must prove what happened and give the former representative a copy of the application first (Rule 62(4)).

I was sick on my hearing day. What do I need? An original medical certificate from a qualified practitioner that says how the condition stopped you and when you can go ahead, without naming the diagnosis (Rule 65(5)–(6)).

My RAD appeal was "dismissed for lack of perfection". Is it over? Not necessarily. The RAD can reopen an appeal under Rule 49 where natural justice was not observed, for example where counsel did not file the Appellant's Record. Judicial review within 15 days is the other route.

Can I do a PRRA instead? Generally not for 12 months after the abandonment, unless an exemption applies (IRPA s.112(2)(b.1)).

Related guides

• Refugee claims
• Stay of removal
• Pre-removal risk assessment guide

Sources

• Refugee Protection Division Rules, rule 62 and rule 65
• Refugee Appeal Division Rules, rule 49
• IRPA s.168, s.49, s.112
• IRB, Step 6: Go to your hearing
• The six Federal Court decisions linked in the table above
• Board letters and decisions from our files (names and details removed)
• Bernataviciute v Canada (MCI), 2019 FC 953 (para 36, quoting Ahamad, 2000)
• Cervenakova v Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 525 (para 64)
• IRB Practice Notice: Allegations Against Former Counsel
• Refugee Protection Division Rules, rules 50, 54 and 60; Refugee Appeal Division Rules, rules 6, 37 and 49; Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s.159.91(2)