Federal Court

Immigration and Citizenship

Refugee Protection

Practice and procedure in refugee claims

Applicant not refugee where no evidence of subjective fear or that he reavailed himself of protection

Applicant, citizen of Ethiopia, sought protection in Canada on basis of his Amhara ethnicity, his political views and his desertion from military. Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dismissed applicant’s claim for protection as convention refugee or person in need of protection on basis that applicant was not credible, he failed to provide evidence of subjective fear and that applicant reavailed himself of protection when he returned to Ethiopia. Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed appeal. Application dismissed. If applicant had problem with alleged inadequate interpretation, that should have been raised at first available opportunity before RPD. There was no breach of procedural fairness arising from manner in which interpreter discharged mandate. RAD did not err in consideration of issue of reavailment, as that term was not only relevant in cessation proceedings. RAD did not commit reviewable error and decision was reasonable.

Abegaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 816, 2017 FC 306, E. Heneghan J. (F.C.).


cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

An Ontario lawyer says that solicitor-client privilege may be threatened by a master’s decision that barred him from representing his own firm in a dispute over a wrongful dismissal claim. Do you agree with the lawyer's assessment?