Can an Internal Flight Alternative in India Defeat a Refugee Claim in Canada?

What Is an Internal Flight Alternative and Why Did It Defeat This Claim?

An internal flight alternative (IFA) is a place in the claimant’s home country where the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution, and where it would not be unreasonable to expect them to live. If the tribunal finds a viable IFA, the refugee claim fails even where the allegations of harm are accepted as true.

In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1344, Justice Thorne of the Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision dated June 27, 2025. The applicant, Gursharan Singh, is a Sikh citizen of India. He alleged a fear of persecution because of an interfaith relationship with a Muslim woman. He said that, upset with the relationship, his girlfriend’s father first had armed men attack him and, working with a corrupt local politician, later had the local police in Punjab detain and threaten him. The RPD accepted his allegations as true. The RAD confirmed that finding, and also confirmed that he had an IFA in Bengaluru or Kolkata. The parties proposed no question for certification, and the Court certified none.

How Did the Tribunal Decide He Would Be Safe in Bengaluru and Kolkata?

The RPD and the RAD found that his risk was centred in his local community in Punjab, because of his former girlfriend’s father, the corrupt politician, and local police officials. They found his agents of harm were local actors who lacked the capacity to locate him or to leverage officials in Bengaluru or Kolkata to persecute him. There was insufficient evidence that those agents could wield influence over police or other authorities in the IFA cities, and there was no evidence that police in his home community had the means or motivation to seek him outside their jurisdiction.

The RAD also noted that he had been given no documentation of pending charges or a warrant, that he had not been issued a First Information Report (FIR), and that there was no indication data relating to him had been entered into the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS). On that basis, the RAD found he was unlikely to come to the attention of police in the IFA cities, because he had not been accused of any crime and there was no evidence the CCTNS had been engaged against him. Justice Thorne found the RAD’s logic on that point clearly discernible.

What Evidence Did the Applicant Raise About National Police Reach?

The applicant argued that the RAD cited country evidence that inter-state coordination is limited and that tenant verification is poorly enforced, but failed to grapple with other parts of the same material saying that police motivated by political pressure have tracked people nationally. The Court disagreed that this made the decision unreasonable. The RAD had highlighted the lack of evidence that the agent of harm had the influence to leverage law enforcement or other local political actors in the IFA cities. There was therefore no evidence he could apply sufficient political pressure to motivate police to track the applicant throughout the country, which was the possibility the country evidence described.

The Court also rejected the argument that relying on the absence of an FIR and a CCTNS entry ignored the extrajudicial mistreatment he described. The RAD’s point was that, even accepting that local treatment, local police could not track him to the IFA cities through the CCTNS without evidence that an FIR or warrant had put his information into that system.

Was Relocating to Bengaluru or Kolkata Unreasonable for This Applicant?

The RAD assessed his personal situation, including his education, work history, and language ability, and found it was not unreasonable for him to move to and live in the IFA locations. Justice Thorne disagreed that this analysis was generic. The RAD identified health services and mental health programs in the IFA locations even though there was a lack of evidence that the applicant had mental health issues. It considered evidence that he could practice his religion there. It accepted that the attack had significantly affected him, but found he had not proved that his life and safety would be jeopardized in relocating to Bengaluru or Kolkata.

The Court cited Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), for the second branch of the IFA test. The threshold is very high. It requires nothing less than conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. The onus was on the applicant, and the Court found he had not met it.

Does a Viable IFA Defeat Both Section 96 and Section 97 Claims?

The applicant argued that police mistreatment required a distinct analysis under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, because of the risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The Court did not agree that the RAD had unreasonably failed to do that. The RAD adopted the RPD’s analysis, which addressed both section 96 and section 97. Citing Sanghera v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 70, at paragraph 17, the Court noted that a viable IFA negates a claim for refugee protection under section 96 or 97, regardless of the merits of other aspects of the claim.

Our immigration lawyers can help you understand how these sections interact in a particular claim.

What Standard Does the Federal Court Apply When Reviewing These Decisions?

The Court cannot intervene unless the RAD decision is unreasonable. An unreasonable decision lacks justification, transparency, or intelligibility. Applying Vavilov, Justice Thorne held it is not the Court’s role to reweigh the evidence. The question is whether the decision shows the justification, intelligibility, and transparency required, and whether any shortcomings are serious enough that the rationale cannot be understood. The Court found a discernible chain of analysis, justified in relation to the facts and law, and dismissed the judicial review. If you are considering a judicial review of a refugee decision, that standard is the one the Court applied here.

Questions and Records to Discuss with a Lawyer

• Did the tribunal accept your allegations as true and still find an internal flight alternative?
• What evidence is there that the people who harmed you can locate you, or influence police, in the proposed city rather than only in your home area?
• Is there an FIR, a warrant, or any indication your information was entered into the CCTNS?
• What did the tribunal say about your education, work history, language, health, and ability to practice your religion in the proposed city?
• Did the reasons address both section 96 and section 97, including by treating a viable IFA as an answer to both?

If you have questions about a refugee claim, an IFA finding, or a potential judicial review, the team at UL Lawyers is available to discuss your circumstances. Reach out through our contact page to learn more about how we may be able to help. We also assist clients in the Hamilton and Burlington regions — you can learn more about our Hamilton immigration services.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.