The Federal Court has dismissed a challenge to the Refugee Protection Division’s refusal to reopen a refugee claim that had been declared abandoned. In Ubiera v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1289, the Court found the RPD reasonably concluded that the claimant had not shown an ongoing intention to pursue his claim.
Case background and abandonment process
The applicant, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered Canada in March 2023 and claimed refugee protection based on fear of the Banda de Los Menores gang. He initially had counsel and provided an updated North York address in June 2023.
He moved to Montreal on January 15, 2024, but did not notify either the RPD or his counsel of the move. Around the same period, he changed his phone number. The RPD scheduled his refugee hearing for March 5, 2024, and sent notice to counsel and to the North York address.
The applicant did not attend the March 5 hearing. The RPD then began abandonment procedures under Rule 65 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules. It held special hearings on March 26 and May 30, 2024. The claimant did not attend either hearing, and the RPD declared the claim abandoned after the May 30 hearing.
Request to reopen the refugee claim
The applicant re-established contact with his former counsel in mid-April 2024 and said he wanted to continue with the refugee claim. Counsel contacted the RPD for a status update on July 22, 2024. After confirmation that the claim had been deemed abandoned, the applicant sought to reopen it on August 26, 2024.
He relied on personal difficulties, including depression, the loss of his phone and injuries sustained during an attempted crossing of the Canada–United States border. He also submitted a referral form for mental health counselling dated June or July 2024.
On September 23, 2024, the RPD refused to reopen the claim. It noted that the applicant had previously demonstrated awareness of the obligation to update his address, but had not done so after moving. The RPD found the mental-health evidence limited and gave little weight to the referral form, which it viewed as a record of self-reported symptoms rather than a meaningful assessment.
Federal Court finds RPD assessment reasonable
Justice A. Grant considered the RPD’s assessment of the evidence on the reasonableness standard. The Court also noted that a procedural-fairness issue may attract a standard akin to correctness, but found that the result would be the same under either standard in this matter.
The Court held that the RPD had comprehensively addressed the evidence and reasonably found that the applicant had not established an ongoing intention to pursue the refugee claim during the relevant period. It found no error in the RPD’s conclusion that the limited psychological evidence did not establish that mental-health difficulties had prevented him from participating in the process.
The Court also found it was open to the RPD to rely on the fact that it had sent notices and instructions by mail and email. The RPD had reasonably considered the applicant’s explanations for not updating his address or lawyer, not checking email, and not attending the abandonment proceedings.
Outcome and practical significance
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court found no breach of procedural fairness, concluding that the applicant had multiple opportunities to be heard and had not established that his personal circumstances deprived him of that opportunity.
The Court did not certify a question for appeal and awarded no costs. The decision concerns the evidence and circumstances in this individual reopening request; it does not direct a general change to RPD abandonment or reopening procedures.
Decision details
The decision is Ubiera v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1289, released in Toronto, Ontario, on October 21, 2026. The matter was heard by Justice A. Grant under Court file IMM-19549-24.
Source: Federal Court Decisions