- Note 1
Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710.
Return to note 1 referrer
- Note 2
Return to note 2 referrer
- Note 3
Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  1 F.C. 589 (C.A.).
Return to note 3 referrer
- Note 4
supra, footnote 1 at 710. In
Chowdhury, Swapan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5618-06), de Montigny, January 8, 2008; 2008 FC 18, the Court noted that it is an error to require a claimant to show that persecution in the IFA "would" happen. See also
Sokol, Sterbyci v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1767-09), O'Keefe, December 8, 2009; 2009 FC 1257. In
Iqbal, Sherry v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3224-17), McDonald, March 15, 2018; 2018 FC 299 the Court quashed a visa officer’s decision because his statement that there was a “low risk” that the applicant would be harmed in the IFA location did not allow the Court to determine that he had applied the correct test.
Return to note 4 referrer
- Note 5
Ibid., at 709 and 711.
Return to note 5 referrer
- Note 6
Kanagaratnam, Parameswary v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-356-94), Strayer, Linden, McDonald, January 17, 1996. Reported: Kanagaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1996), 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 180 (F.C.A.);
Arunachalam, Sinnathamby v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-157-96), MacKay, August 14, 1996. A finding of an IFA may implicitly concede a well-founded fear of persecution elsewhere in the country although the Court, in
Sarker, noted that when looking at the existence of an IFA, the Board could find that the claimant faced harm, could assume (without finally determining the question) that he faced harm, or could ignore the whole question, as long as the Board applied the correct test to the IFA analysis, and the conclusion of an IFA was supported by the evidence. See
Sarker, Ataur Rahman v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-5515-04), Snider, March 11, 2005; 2005 FC 353;
Nzayisenga, Jean Claude v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5203-11), Mandamin, September 30, 2012; 2012 FC 1103; and
Dakpokpo, Hilary Usomhine v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4559-16), Zinn, June 13, 2017; 2017 FC 580.
Return to note 6 referrer
- Note 7
Hernandez Cardozo, Eduardo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5095-11), Shore, February 9, 2012; 2012 FC 190. In this case, the claimant failed to establish a subjective fear and thus it was open to the RPD not to perform an IFA analysis.
Return to note 7 referrer
- Note 8
Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-711-07), Mosley, December 21, 2007; 2007 FC 1354.
Return to note 8 referrer
- Note 9
Muhammed, Falululla Peer v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5122-11), Harrington , February 17, 2012; 2012 FC 226, the risks in the proposed IFA area included unexploded landmines and infrastructural issues affecting millions of Sri Lankans of all backgrounds.
Return to note 9 referrer
- Note 10
Selvakumaran, Sivachelam v. M.C.I (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5103-01), Mckeown, May 31, 2002.
Return to note 10 referrer
- Note 11
Singh, Gurmeet v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-75-95), Richard, July 4, 1995. Reported:
Singh, (Gurmeet) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 30 Imm. L.R. (2d) 226 (F.C.T.D.), at 4. See also,
Sangha, Karamjit Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1555-98), Reed, October 28, 1998.
Return to note 11 referrer
- Note 12
Mortocian, Alexandru v. M.C.I. (.FC. no., IMM-3837-12), Kane, December 7, 2012; 2012 FC 1447.
Return to note 12 referrer
- Note 13
Thevarajah, Anton Felix v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-695-04), Mosley, November 24, 2004; 2004 FC 1654.
Return to note 13 referrer
- Note 14
Ay, Hasan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4149-09), Boivin, June 21, 2010; 2010 FC 671.
Return to note 14 referrer
- Note 15
Moya, Jaime Olvera v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5436-01), Beaudry, November 6, 2002.
Return to note 15 referrer
- Note 16
Hasnain, Khalid v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-962-92), McKeown, December 14, 1995. In Scott,
Dailon Ronald v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2691-12), Gagné, September 10, 2012; 2012 FC 1066, the questioning by counsel and the oral and written arguments were held to be adequate notice that IFA was an issue in the case.
Return to note 16 referrer
- Note 17
Chauhdry, Mukhtar Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3951-97), Wetston, August 17, 1998.
Return to note 17 referrer
- Note 18
Alvapillai, Ramasethu v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4226-97), Rothstein, August 14, 1998. In
Estrado Lugo, Regina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1166-09), O’Keefe, February 18, 2010; 2010 FC 170, the Court noted that there was no obligation on the claimants to have already sought state protection in the proposed IFA location. See also
Ramirez Martinez, Jorge Armando v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1284-09), Snider, June 1, 2010; 2010 FC 600, where the Court, quoting
Alvapillai, held that it is an error to require that the IFA be tested before seeking refugee protection in Canada.
Return to note 18 referrer
- Note 19
Rabbani, Sayed Moheyudee v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-236-96), Noël, January 16, 1997, the Court said that the CRDD must identify a specific geographic location; but in
Singh, Ranjit v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-605-92), Reed, July 23, 1996, the Court rejected the claimant's argument that the CRDD should identify a place within the country as an IFA, especially in a country as large as India. In
Vidal, Daniel Fernando v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-644-92), Gibson, May 15, 1997 no notice was given at outset of hearing, but counsel presented evidence on IFA. The Court found no prejudice was suffered by the claimant as a result of the failure to give notice. Similarly, in
Gosal, Pardeep Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2316-97), Reed, March 11, 1998, the Court found that one need not identify a specific location within the country for an IFA analysis.
Rabbani was distinguished on its facts as in that case the country concerned was Afghanistan and control over areas considered safe tended to shift. In
Moreb, Sliman v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-287-05), von Finckenstein, July 5, 2005; 2005 FC 945, the Court found the RPD to have erred when it referred to Jerusalem and Nazareth as the only possible IFA locations and then went on to consider Tel-Aviv-Yafo as an IFA. The Court offered that the panel could have raised the issue of IFA generally without referring to any specific location.
Return to note 19 referrer
- Note 20
Utoh, Helen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6120-11), Rennie, April 10, 2012; 2012 FC 399. This case relied on the checklist of legal criteria for determining whether an IFA exists set out in Gallo Farias,
Alejandrina Dayna v. M.C.I.(F.C., no. IMM-658-08), Kelen, September 16, 2008; 2008 FC 1035, where the first criteria is set out as follows:
If IFA will be an issue, the Refugee Board must give notice to the refugee claimant prior to the hearing (Rasaratnam …, Thirunavukkarasu) and identify a specific IFA location(s) within the refugee claimant’s country of origin (Rabbani …, Camargo …)
Ahmed, Ishtiaq v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2931-99), Hansen, March 29, 2000, the Court found the CRDD had erred in considering Islamabad and Karachi as possible IFAs when the claimant only had notice that Lahore was being considered as a possible IFA. In
Lopez Martinez, Heydi Vanessa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5081-09), Pinard, May 25, 2010; 2010 FC 550, the Court, at paragraph 23, noted: “…I do not propose that the Board is under an obligation to provide justification for selecting the city it did initially…” (Emphasis added). But note that the Board did have to explain why the proposed IFA was safe given that the agent of harm was active there.
Return to note 20 referrer
- Note 21
See for example:
Abubakar, Fahmey Abdalla Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-572-92), Wetston, September 9, 1993, at 3-5;
Pathmakanthan, Indradevi v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2367-93), Denault, November 2, 1993. Reported:
Pathmakanthan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 76 (F.C.T.D.), at 79-80;
Kaler, Minder Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-794-93), Cullen, February 3, 1994, at 9;
Dhillon, Harbhagwant Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3256-93), Rouleau, March 17, 1994, at 3;
Jeyachandran, Senthan v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-799-94), McKeown, March 30, 1995;
Ratnam, Selvanayagam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1881-94), Richard, March 31, 1995. However, it is an error to interpret the first prong of the test as requiring that all similar persons would be persecuted in the IFA area. In
Aria, Ashraf v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2499-12), de Montigny, April 2, 2013; 2013 FC 324, the RPD erred when it stated that it was “not credible that all young women are subject to forced marriages which are not forced by their own families”. A serious possibility of persecution does not mean that “all young women” would be subject to forced marriages with warlords.
Return to note 21 referrer
- Note 22
Kahlon, Hari Singh v. S.G.C(F.C.T.D., no. IMM-532-93), Gibson, August 5, 1993. Reported:
Kahlon v. Canada (Solicitor General), (1993), 24 Imm. L.R. (2d) 219 (F.C.T.D.), at 222-224;
Manoharan, Vanajah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1156-92), Rouleau, December 6, 1993, at 7-8;
Naguleswaran, Pathmasilosini (Naguleswaran) v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1116-94), Muldoon, April 19, 1995, at 6 (however, caution is suggested concerning interpretation of the phrase, “…solid proof of personal persecution (either individually or collectively)…” given case law indicating there is no need for past persecution, individually or collectively, e.g. see
Salibian v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  3 F.C. 250 (C.A.)).
Return to note 22 referrer
- Note 23
See for example
Ali, Chaudhary Liaqat v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1461-92), Noël, January 20, 1994, at 5-6.
Return to note 23 referrer
- Note 24
Ahmed, Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-89-92), Marceau, Desjardins, Décary, July 14, 1993. Reported:
Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 156 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.), at 223-224. See also for example:
M.E.I. v. Sharbdeen, Mohammed Faroudeen (F.C.A., no. A-488-93), Mahoney, MacGuigan, Linden, March 21, 1994. Reported:
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Sharbdeen (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.A.) (although this issue appears to be considered under reasonableness);
Nadarajah, Sivasothy Nathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4215-93), Simpson, July 26, 1994; Randhawa, Faheem Anwar v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5621-93), Rouleau, August 12, 1994;
Zetino, Rudys Francisco Mendoza v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6173-93), Cullen, October 13, 1994. Reported:
Zetino v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 25 Imm. L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.T.D.) (although this issue may be considered under reasonableness); See also
Khan, Naqui Mohd v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4127-01), Rothstein, July 26, 2002, where the court found that the localized nature of the claimants activities and the region’s legal system supported the panel’s finding of an IFA outside of that region. In Siddiq, Dawood v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1684-03), Harrington, March 31, 2004; 2004 FC 490, the Court found that a failure to address the question of persecution by national authorities when considering an internal flight alternative is a reviewable error
Return to note 24 referrer
- Note 25
Singh, Harminder v. M.C.I. (F.C`. no. IMM-4333-13), Gleason, March 20, 2014; 2014 FC 269.
Return to note 25 referrer
- Note 26
Saini, Makhan Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-750-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, March 22, 1993. Reported:
Saini v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 151 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. denied:
Saini v. M.E.I. (S.C.C., no. 23619), Lamer, McLachlin, Major), August 12, 1993. Reported:
Saini v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 158 N.R. 300 (S.C.C.). See also for example:
Sidhu, Jadgish Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6540), Muldoon, May 31, 1993;
Badesha, Jagir Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1544-92), Wetston, January 19, 1994. Reported:
Badesha v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 190 (F.C.T.D.);
Uppal, Jatinder Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. A-17-93), Wetston, January 19, 1994, affirmed:
Uppal, Jatinder Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-42-94), Isaac, Hugessen, Décary, November 1, 1994;
supra, footnote 24, at 9;
Karthikesu, Cumariah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2998-93), Strayer, May 26, 1994;
Guraya, Balihar Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4058-93), Pinard, July 8, 1994;
Balasubramaniam, Veergathy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1902-93), McKeown, October 4, 1994;
Dhillon, Inderjit Kaur v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2652-94), McKeown, February 1, 1995; Zamora Huerta, Erika Angelina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1985-07), Blanchard, May 8, 2008; 2008 FC 586; and
Fosu, Frank Atta v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-935-08), Zinn, October 8, 2008; 2008 FC 1135.
Sharbdeen, supra, footnote 25, in quashing the CRDD decision, the Court cited
Saini and stated that in order to find a viable IFA in a part of the country controlled by the same army who was persecuting the claimant, it would require an evidentiary basis.
Saini has been distinguished in
Singh, Sucha v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-91), Dubé, June 23, 1993, where the Court held that the CRDD's conclusion that an IFA existed because there was not a nation-wide campaign against the claimant's ethnic group did not satisfy the criteria for finding an IFA as established in
supra, footnote 1.
Return to note 26 referrer
- Note 27
Murillo Taborda, Lissed v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-9365-12), Kane, September 17, 2013; 2013 FC 957;
v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1769-14), Mactavish, October 2, 2014; 2014 FC 939; and Ehondor, Tosan Erhun v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2372-17), Brown, December 14, 2017; 2017 FC 1143.
Return to note 27 referrer
- Note 28
Fosu, Frank Atta v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-935-08), Zinn, October 8, 2008; 2008 FC 1135. Also, it is not reasonable for the Board to suggest that the claimant should avoid contact with family member in the IFA to avoid the risk of being located: I.M.P.P. v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4049-09), Mosley, March 9, 2010; 2010 FC 259.
Return to note 28 referrer
- Note 29
Kulanthavelu, Gnanasegaram v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-57-93), Gibson, December 3, 1993, at 5-6. In
Losowa Osengosengo, Victorine v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4132-13), Gagné, March 13, 2014; 2014 FC 244, the Court found that it was unreasonable for the RPD to find that the claimant, a nun, could find an IFA in Kinshasa where she had family and could make a living as a teacher. The Court found that it was legitimate for the claimant, as a nun, to insist upon living among her congregation as her religious duty. Evidence that she could seek refuge with her family members should not have been determinative for the Board.
Return to note 29 referrer
- Note 30
Karthikesu, Cumariah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2998-93), Strayer, May 26, 1994, Balasubramaniam, Veergathy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1902-93), McKeown, October 4, 1994.
Return to note 30 referrer
- Note 31
Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996;
Sanno, Aminata v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2124-95), Tremblay-Lamer, April 25, 1996.
Return to note 31 referrer
- Note 32
Cadena Ramirez, Francisco José v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5911-09), Rennie, December 20, 2010; 2010 FC 1276.
Return to note 32 referrer
- Note 33
Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3.
Return to note 33 referrer
- Note 34
Return to note 34 referrer
- Note 35
Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000;  2 F.C. 164 (C.A.).
In Sikiratu Iyile, Sandra v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6609-10), Harrington, July 25, 2011; 2011 FC 928, the Court rejected the claimant’s argument that it would be inhumane to send her back to Lagos, to return her to a life of begging and prostitution. The Court noted this is a situation in which any young uneducated female might find herself in a big city. It does not give rise to a refugee claim. It agreed with the RPD that although she professed that she had no knowledge of help available in Lagos from NGOs, she now had the knowledge and these organizations can help to find her shelter and employment.
Return to note 35 referrer
- Note 36
Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3. In applying the principle set out in
Thirunavukkarasu that the IFA must be an area that is realistically attainable, the Court in
Playasova, Liudmila Fedor v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3931-02), Martineau, July 18, 2003; 2003 FC 901 stated that the failure of the RPD to consider that the claimant could only relocate to the IFA if she had the means to pay bribes to obtain a
propiska was an error. In
Dubravac, Petar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-839-94), Rothstein, February 1, 1995. Reported:
Dubravac v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 55 (F.C.T.D.), where the claimant’s hometown had been surrounded by opposing Serbian forces, the Court commented that they “would not be required to go from their hometown to the safe zone of Croatia, but … from wherever they were relanded upon being sent back.”
Return to note 36 referrer
- Note 37
Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3.
Return to note 37 referrer
- Note 38
Ranganathan, supra, footnote 35.
Return to note 38 referrer
- Note 39
Sharbdeen, supra, footnote 24.
Return to note 39 referrer
- Note 40
See for example:
Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3;
Rasaratnam, supra, footnote 1; Fernando, Joseph Stanley v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6986), McKeown, May 19, 1993;
Abubakar, supra, footnote 21;
Megag, Sahra Abdilahi v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-822-92), Rothstein, December 10, 1993;
Chkiaou, Dimitri v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no., IMM-266-94), Cullen, March 7, 1995; and
Sanno, supra, footnote 31. In
Yoganathan, Kandasamy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3588-97), Gibson, April 20, 1998, the Court noted that, in assessing the reasonableness of the IFA, the CRDD must look at the personal circumstances of the claimant and it is insufficient to simply assess whether the claimant fits the "most at risk profile." In
Cartagena, Wilber Orlando v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-961-06), Mosley, March 4, 2008; 2008 FC 289, the Court noted that the Board failed to take into account the claimant’s vulnerable mind-set; and
in Calderon, Sonia Blancas v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5367-08), Near, March 8, 2010; 2010 FC 263, the Court noted that it was unduly harsh and unreasonable for the RPD to hold that the claimant had a viable IFA as long as she never attempted to re-secure custody of her young children from her abusive ex-husband.
Return to note 40 referrer
- Note 41
See for example:
Singh, Sucha v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-91), Dubé, June 23, 1993; Kahlon; supra, footnote 22;
Dhaliwal, Jasbir Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-364), MacKay, August 9, 1993; Singh, Swarn v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1409-92), Rothstein, May 4, 1994. In
Thevasagayam, Ebenezer Thevaraj v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-252-97), Tremblay-Lamer, October 23, 1997, the evidence of past detention and torture of the claimant in relation to a Colombo bombing cast doubt on the reasonableness of an IFA. In
Premanathan, Gopalasamy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4423-96), Simpson, August 29, 1997, it was noted that random roundups and routine reporting requirements do not make IFA unreasonable. In
Kaillyapillai, Srivasan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1263-96), Richard, February 27, 1997, the Court found no IFA in Colombo for a claimant who had been arrested, beaten and released and told to leave Colombo. In
Masalov, Sergey v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7207-13), Diner, March 4, 2015; 2015 FC 277, the Court found that it was unreasonable to expect the applicants to relocate to the proposed IFA. The principal applicant had attempted to relocate to Kazan but could only obtain temporary residence for three or four days because he was unable to obtain a Propiska registration. The documentary evidence listed the cascading effects of an inability to register and how it operates as an invitation for harassment by the authorities. Also, expecting an elderly couple to endure persistent police harassment is unreasonable, as it implicates their safety within the IFA.
Return to note 41 referrer
- Note 42
Cartagena, supra, footnote 40. See also
Okafor, Sara v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6848-10), Beaudry, August 17, 2011; 2011 FC 1002.
Return to note 42 referrer
- Note 43
Idrees, Muhammad v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4136-13), Diner, December 10, 2014; 2014 FC 1194, the Court found that the RPD failed to consider the applicant’s risk of ethnic violence in determining whether it was reasonable for him, an ethnic Pashtun, to seek refuge in Karachi. In
Chand, Mool v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-61-14), Rennie, February 19, 2015; 2015 FC 212, the RPD was faulted with ignoring evidence of acts of violence and forced conversions against Hindus in finding that it was reasonable for the claimants to relocate to Karachi. In two cases involving Colombians and the finding that Bogota would constitute a safe IFA, the Court stated that the RPD ignored evidence that internally displaced persons (IDP) in Colombia lead a fragile and vulnerable existence and that they face life in overcrowded slums where they experience violations of their fundamental human rights. See
Arias Ultima, Angela Maria v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3984-12), Manson, January 25, 2013; 2013 FC 81; and
Barragan Gonzalez, Julio Angelo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6335-13), Boswell, April 20, 2015; 2015 FC 502.
Return to note 43 referrer
- Note 44
Ranganathan, supra, footnote 35. More than the mere absence of relatives is needed in order to make an IFA unreasonable.
Return to note 44 referrer
- Note 45
The absence of family in an IFA is relevant to determining the unreasonableness of requiring a child to live there.
Elmi, Mahamud Hussein v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-580-98), McKeown, March 12, 1999. Similarly, in
Hassan, Liban v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3634-98), Campbell, April 14, 1999, the Court found that in the case of a minor, an IFA cannot be reasonable unless proper settlement arrangements are made.
Return to note 45 referrer
- Note 46
Ranganathan, supra, footnote 35. As the Court put it: “The absence of relatives in a safe place, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other factors, can only amount to such condition if it meets that threshold, that is to say if it establishes that, as a result, a claimant's life or safety would be jeopardized. This is in sharp contrast with undue hardship resulting from loss of employment, loss of status, reduction in quality of life, loss of aspirations, loss of beloved ones and frustration of one's wishes and expectations.”
Return to note 46 referrer
- Note 47
Farrah, Sahra Said v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-694-92), Reed, October 5, 1993, at 3. Regarding stability, see also
Tawfik, Taha Mohammed v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-311), MacKay, August 23, 1993. Reported:
Tawfik v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 148 (F.C.T.D.).
Return to note 47 referrer
- Note 48
Megag, supra, footnote 40. This case was relied on in Muhammed,
Falululla, Peer v. M.C.I. (F.C. no., IMM-5122-11), Harrington, February 17, 2012; 2012 FC 226. The Court noted that [I]t was submitted that it would be unreasonable to have Mr. Peer Muhammed relocate in the east because, although not as ravaged as other parts of the country in the civil war, there are unexploded landmines and the infrastructure leaves much to be desired. However, this is a situation facing millions of Sri Lankans, Sinhalese and Tamils alike, be they Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Muslim.”
Return to note 48 referrer
- Note 49
Rumb, Serge v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1481-98), Reed, February 12, 1999. The Court held that, “[I]nsofar as the IFA is concerned, a disintegrating infrastructure is not equivalent to a dessert, or to a battle zone. In the first place, one must be careful when comparing the infrastructures of countries that the standard of our own is not held up as the required standard. There are many countries where telephones do not work well or all the time, where the roads are very very poor, where electricity only works at certain times. These conditions are not such however, that a person can say they cannot live in that country because it is not practical (reasonable) to do so. The Board was not in error in failing to assess the deteriorating infrastructure as a reason the applicant could not live in Kinshasa or elsewhere in the Congo.”
Return to note 49 referrer
- Note 50
Mimica, Milanka v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3014-95), Rothstein, June 19, 1996, the claimant could only find accommodation in the IFA, the Serbian controlled part of Bosnia, if the current Muslim residents of the area were forcibly expelled because of their religion/ethnicity to make room for returning Serbian refugees. The Court held that making accommodation available to the claimant would be as a result of human rights abuses to other residents and that this could not be the basis of a finding of a viable internal flight alternative.
Return to note 50 referrer
- Note 51
Hashmat, Suhil v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2331-96), Teitelbaum, May 9, 1997, the claimant could only access the IFA in northern Afghanistan by going through the neighbouring state of Uzbekistan. The Court found it unreasonable for the panel to conclude, without any evidence, that the claimant would be allowed to cross the border. The Court also noted that the
Immigration Act would not allow removal to a country that is not the claimant’s country of birth, nationality or former residence. See also
Dirshe, Safi Mohamud v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2124-96), Cullen, July 2, 1997, where the Court noted that a real possibility of rape while trying to get to the IFA makes it an unreasonable option. In fact
Hashmat, the Court found there to be undue hardship in reaching the IFA because the claimant’s wife and child, who were not claimants, would have to travel with him to reach the IFA and there was evidence of widespread rape of women and children making that journey. In
Tahlil, Mohamed Sugule v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5920-10), Zinn, July 5, 2011; 2011 FC 817, the Court directed that if the applicant was removed from Canada to Somalia, he be returned directly to Bosaso and was not to travel into or through other areas of Somalia. In
Ajelal, Mustafa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4522-13), Diner, November 19, 2014; 2014 FC 1093, the Court allowed the judicial review application noting that if the RPD wanted the claimant to reach either of the two identified IFAs, it failed to state how he would avoid going through the Tripoli airport, or alternate routes to the places of supposed safe haven.
Return to note 51 referrer
- Note 52
Syvyryn, Ganna v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1569-09), Snider, October 13, 2009; 2009 FC 1027; and
Kayumba, Bijou Kamwanga v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1920-09), Beaudry, February 10, 2010; 2010 FC 138. In
Agimelen Oriazouwani, Winifred v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6440-10), Shore, July 8, 2011; 2011 FC 827, the RPD’s finding that an IFA existed did not take into account the specific evidence as to the unreasonableness of the IFA for the applicant and her two minor children especially in light of the Chairperson’s Gender Guidelines. The RPD failed to consider the contradictory documentary evidence regarding female genital mutilation indicating that what is criminalized through legislation has not as yet become generalized in practice in respect to tenable protection.
Return to note 52 referrer
- Note 53
Utoh, supra, footnote 20.
Return to note 53 referrer
- Note 54
Smirnova, Svetlana v. M.C.I. (FC., no. IMM-6641-12), Noël, April 12 2013; 2013 FC 347.
Return to note 54 referrer