{"id":1721,"date":"2026-10-30T15:52:54","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T15:52:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/?p=1721"},"modified":"2026-10-30T15:52:54","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T15:52:54","slug":"refugee-claim-abandoned-reopen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/refugee-claim-abandoned-reopen\/","title":{"rendered":"Refugee Claim Declared Abandoned: How to Reopen It"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a>, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation \u00b7 Reviewed October 30, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The fix:<\/strong> an application to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) to reopen the claim under Rule 62, and usually a judicial review in the Federal Court at the same time. RAD appeals "dismissed for lack of perfection" are reopened under RAD Rule 49.<\/p>\n

The deadline:<\/strong> judicial review must be filed within 15 days of the decision. The removal order takes effect 15 days after you are notified. Reopening has no fixed deadline, but delay counts against you.<\/p>\n

The test:<\/strong> you must show a "failure to observe a principle of natural justice". Being late or confused is not enough on its own.<\/p>\n

Why a lawyer:<\/strong> most of these cases need the Federal Court as well as the RPD or RAD, within 15 days. A lawyer handles both in one file. A consultant can't go to the Federal Court. Why a lawyer<\/a><\/p>\n

Book a consultation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The lawyers who handle these files<\/p>\n

\"SundeepSundeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PrabhpreetPrabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PardeepPardeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
\nAbout our lawyers<\/summary>\n
\n

Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.<\/p>\n

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a><\/strong> focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.<\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n

Short answer.<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Lawgical Law Corporation<\/a>‘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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

What the Board's letters say, and what each sentence means<\/h2>\n

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

1. The warning on every Notice to Appear<\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The letter says<\/th>\nWhat it means<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
"If you do not attend your hearing on the date indicated above, the IRB will hold a special hearing called an abandonment hearing to decide whether you may continue with your claim for refugee protection."<\/td>\nMissing your hearing does not end the claim on the spot. It triggers a second, short hearing about why you missed it.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"If we cannot reach you, we may decide you have abandoned or given up your claim for refugee protection."<\/td>\nMoving without telling the IRB in writing is one of the most common ways claims end. Telling IRCC or CBSA is not enough; the IRB needs its own form.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"Your counsel must be available and ready to proceed on the scheduled date. The RPD rarely changes the date or time of a hearing because your counsel cannot attend."<\/td>\nA representative's schedule is not a reason to miss the hearing.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

2. The special hearing notice ("Notice to Appear \u2013 Abandonment of a Claim for Refugee Protection")<\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The letter says<\/th>\nWhat it means<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
"The hearing of your claim for refugee protection was scheduled for [..], but you failed to appear. A special hearing to allow you to explain why you did not appear will take place [..]."<\/td>\nYou have one chance, usually within 5 working days, to explain. Bring proof.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"If you do not appear at the special hearing, the RPD may declare your claim abandoned. If your claim is declared abandoned, this means that your refugee protection claim has ended."<\/td>\nMissing this second hearing almost always ends the claim.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"[..] explain why you did not attend your refugee protection hearing; and discuss any factors that are relevant to whether your claim should be declared abandoned, including whether you are ready to start or continue the proceedings."<\/td>\nThe member asks two questions: why you missed it, and whether you are ready to go ahead now. Being ready that day helps.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"If the RPD is satisfied with the explanation [..], the RPD may hear your claim on the same day or as soon as possible after that day."<\/td>\nCome prepared to have your full hearing that day.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

3. The abandonment decision<\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The decision says<\/th>\nWhat it means<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
"You appeared at that hearing but did not demonstrate why the RPD should not declare your claim abandoned."<\/td>\nYou attended the special hearing, but your explanation or evidence was not enough.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"the Refugee Protection Division has determined that your claim has been abandoned"<\/td>\nThe claim has ended. The removal order takes effect 15 days after this notice. The 15-day Federal Court deadline is running.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"You have the right to make an application to the Federal Court for this decision to be reviewed. In limited circumstances, you may also apply to the Refugee Protection Division to reopen your claim. You may have counsel help you with these applications. There are time limits for making these applications."<\/td>\nThe Board itself tells you both routes: judicial review (15 days) and reopening. You can use both at once, but file the reopening quickly. A Minister's response in our files called a reopening filed two months after the court application unreasonably late.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"the relevant question before me \u2026 is, considering all of the circumstances, whether the claimant has a continuing intention to pursue his refugee claim with diligence"<\/td>\nThis is the test at the special hearing (Ahamad (2000), adopted in Bernataviciute, 2019 FC 953, para 36). Saying you want to continue is not enough. Your actions must show it.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"I understand that the claimant made a unilateral decision to excuse himself from attendance, despite knowing that he was required to attend."<\/td>\nNot attending because you are "not ready" (for example, while waiting for documents from home) is treated as default. The fix is to apply to change the date of the hearing (RPD Rule 54) before it happens, or to attend and ask for time.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"if a claimant wishes to make allegations against his former counsel he should do so in compliance with the RPD's Practice Notice \u2013 Allegations Against Former Counsel"<\/td>\nBlaming your former representative at the hearing, without first giving them written notice, was rejected outright. Raise it at the earliest chance and follow the Practice Notice steps.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

4. Decisions refusing to reopen<\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The decision says<\/th>\nWhat it means<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
"I dismiss the application to reopen the claim pursuant to Rule 62, as I find that there has not been a failure to observe a principle of natural justice."<\/td>\nThe member found the process was fair to you, so the rule did not allow reopening.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"counsel has failed to address in his submissions the factors under Rule 62(6) and 62(7)"<\/td>\nThe application did not argue the actual test. This is a drafting failure, and it is avoidable.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"I find the applicant has not demonstrated a failure to observe a principle of natural justice"<\/td>\nNot having a lawyer, on its own, was not treated as unfair.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"Your refugee protection claim has not been reopened"<\/td>\nThe refusal itself can be taken to the Federal Court within 15 days.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"My task \u2026 is not to re-determine whether the applicant's claim should or should not have been declared abandoned, my task is only to assess whether there was a failure to observe a principle of natural justice in reaching the decision to abandon the claim."<\/td>\nReopening is not a second try at the special hearing. The application must point to something unfair in the process.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"the right to counsel is not absolute"<\/td>\nBeing without a lawyer helps only if it actually affected the hearing, for example if you asked for time to find one and were refused.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"The RPD cannot reasonably be expected to respond to correspondence it did not receive"<\/td>\nAn email that bounced or went to the wrong address does not count. Keep proof that the Board received what you sent.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"Applications for reinstatement are to be undertaken when a claim has been withdrawn. The correct rule \u2026 is Rule 62."<\/td>\nReinstatement (Rule 60) is for withdrawn claims. Reopening (Rule 62) is for abandoned ones. Using the wrong rule weakens the application.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"failed to provide an affidavit or statutory declaration in support of the application"<\/td>\nFacts must be sworn (RPD Rule 50(4)). A letter that only retells events gives the member little to rely on.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"The application was returned \u2026 for failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules."<\/td>\nThe application must first be served on the Minister, with proof of service (Rules 50 and 62(2)). An unserved application can be returned and not decided.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"The Minister is directed to provide their position on the application in writing \u2026 If the RPD does not receive a response from the Minister a decision will be issued regardless."<\/td>\nThe Minister (CBSA) gets a say and often opposes. Expect a response attacking delay or diligence, and be ready to reply.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

5. A decision allowing reopening<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The decision says<\/th>\nWhat it means<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
"I find that the respondent was deprived of procedural fairness and natural justice through whatever administrative error resulted in the RPD not receiving the documents in time."<\/td>\nYou don't have to prove who made the mistake. It is enough that your material never got to the decision-maker.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"The evidence before me indicates that the respondent took steps to obtain these documents and took steps to provide this material to the RPD within the timeframe established by the panel."<\/td>\nWhat won was proof of the claimant's own diligence: dated steps, within the deadline.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"I order the matter be remitted back to the originally constituted panel for final determination."<\/td>\nReopening does not guarantee a new member. Here the same member was to decide, now with the documents.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"Your refugee protection claim is reopened."<\/td>\nThe claim is pending again, and it is decided on its merits.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

6. RAD appeals "dismissed for lack of perfection"<\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The decision says<\/th>\nWhat it means<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
"To date, the RAD has not received the Appellant's Record, an Application for an Extension of Time, or any other communication from the Appellant or their counsel."<\/td>\nThe appeal was filed, but the Appellant's Record (the arguments and evidence) never arrived within 45 days of receiving the RPD's reasons.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for lack of perfection."<\/td>\nThe appeal ended without anyone reading your arguments. RAD Rule 49 allows reopening on the same natural justice test. In our files this has happened where prior counsel did not file, and appeals were later reopened.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"If you still want to continue with the appeal, you must file an application for an extension of time which must follow rule 6 of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules, and provide an affidavit or solemn declaration that explains why you missed the time limits."<\/td>\nA late Notice of Appeal is not the end. The RAD sends this letter with a short deadline (about a week in our files). Reply with a sworn explanation and the Appellant's Record.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"For reasons of fairness and natural justice, the RAD may extend the time limit to file or perfect an appeal."<\/td>\nWording on the RAD's extension form (RAD Rules 6 and 37; Regulations s.159.91(2)). Show that you meant to appeal on time, that you have an arguable case, that the delay is explained, and that no one is prejudiced.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
"To date, the RAD has not received the Appellant's Record \u2026" (where the Record had in fact been sent)<\/td>\nIn our files, a Record sent with the extension application was never linked to the appeal, and the appeal was dismissed. A Rule 49 reopening, filed with a copy of the pending Federal Court application (Rule 49(5)), led to the appeal being decided on its merits.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Why reopening needs a lawyer<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

One lawyer, one file, every step:<\/p>\n