Chapter 8 - Internal Flight Alternative

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Table of Contents

  1. 8.1. The Two-Prong Test and General Principles
  2. 8.2. Notice - Burden of Proof
  3. 8.3. Interpretation and Application of the Two-Pronged Test
    1. 8.3.1. Fear of Persecution
    2. 8.3.2. Reasonable in All the Circumstances
  4. Table of Cases

8. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

8.1. The Two-Prong Test and General Principles

The question of whether an IFA exists is an integral part of the Convention refugee definition.Note 1 It arises when a claimant who otherwise meets all the elements of the Convention refugee definition in his or her home area of the country never theless is not a Convention refugee because the person has an IFA elsewhere in that country. The key concepts concerning IFA come from two cases: RasaratnamNote 2 and Thirunavukkarasu.Note 3 From these cases it is clear that the test to be applied in determining whether there is an IFA is two-pronged.

  1. "… the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists."Note 4
  2. Moreover, conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him to seek refuge there.Note 5

Both prongs must be satisfied for a finding that the claimant has an IFA.

The Court of Appeal in KanagaratnamNote 6, was of the view that the determination of whether a claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her home area of the country is not a prerequisite to the consideration of an IFA. At the same time, if a claimant fails to meet elements of the definition in the home area, it is open to the tribunal not to proceed to do an IFA analysis.Note 7

The concept of an IFA does not require that the safe haven be in another city or province of the state of origin so long as it is truly an area in which the claimant can seek refuge from the experienced persecution.Note 8 At the same time, an IFA may still exist where the risks in the proposed IFA are risks faced by all inhabitants.Note 9

A finding of IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of a region for that purpose taking into account the claimant’s identity. It cannot be inferred from earlier findings of fact unconnected to the issue of an IFA.Note 10

The relationship between IFA, change of circumstances and the applicability of “compelling reasons” was considered by the Court,Note 11 which concluded that where an IFA applies to a claimant, that person is not and never could have been a Convention refugee. Accordingly, he or she could not cease to be a Convention refugee on the basis of a change of circumstances.

With respect to whether an “external flight alternative” might exist in the European Union for claimants who might have experienced persecution in one of the member states, the closest to a determination that this concept may not be applicable in Canadian law can be inferred from the MortocianNote 12 case. The Court was considering the RPD’s determination, which it found reasonable, that the Romanian claimant of Roma ethnicity was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection because what he faced was discrimination not amounting to persecution. The issue of an external flight alternative in the EU was addressed as follows:

[15] Regarding discrimination in employment, the Applicant submits that the Board, in essence, relied on an External Flight Alternative, suggesting that the Applicant could be employed elsewhere in the European Union. In addition, the Applicant submits that the Board failed to consider that the Applicant would be forced to work at menial jobs and or at a lesser wage in Romania and that this constitutes persecution.

[16] With respect to the notion of an External Flight Alternative, I agree with the Applicant that there is no such requirement. An Applicant need not demonstrate that they are unable to go to any country where they may have the right to work in order to establish that they satisfy the Convention refugee definition. Despite the increased mobility within the European Union [EU], those who work in other countries do not enjoy all the privileges of nationals and while they may be permitted to work, the periods of employment are limited. The European Union is a union of several distinct countries and is not one country. Whether this argument is cast as an Internal Flight Alternative within the EU or an External Flight Alternative beyond the country of origin, there is no requirement on an Applicant to exhaust employment opportunities in other countries.

8.2. Notice - Burden of Proof

Two other general principles that emerge from Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu concern notice and burden of proof. With respect to notice, the issue of IFA must be raised by the panel or the Minister (before or during the hearing). The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) does not automatically put claimants on notice that IFA is an issue in the claim. The principles regarding fair notice expressed in Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu are still relevant under IRPA.Note 13 The notice must be clear and sufficient.Note 14

It is a breach of natural justice to tell the claimant that IFA is not an issue and then, later, make a contrary finding on that issue.Note 15 Extensive questioning during the hearing (by the Board or by counsel) on the subject of IFA can be sufficient notice.Note 16

With respect to burden of proof, once the issue is raised, the onus is on the claimant to show that he or she does not have an IFA. Even though the burden of proof rests on the claimant, the Board cannot base a finding that there is an IFA, in the absence of sufficient evidence, solely on the basis that the claimant has not fulfilled the onus of proof.Note 17

There is no onus on a claimant to personally test the viability of an IFA before seeking protection in Canada.Note 18

While in earlier jurisprudence there was inconsistency about whether a specific location or region must be identified as the potential IFA,Note 19 more recent case law suggest that the RPD must identify the specific IFA locations.Note 20 The outcome of any one particular judicial review application involving this issue may hinge on how clearly the claimant was questioned regarding the IFA issue and how clearly the panel explains its findings.

8.3. Interpretation and Application of the Two-Pronged Test

The abundance of case law on the topic of IFA basically concerns the interpretation and application of the two-pronged test. Some factors are relevant to both prongs of the test, some are relevant to one or the other prong.

8.3.1. Fear of Persecution

On the issue of whether there is a serious possibility of persecution in the potential IFA, the considerations are basically the same as when making this determination with respect to the claimant's home area of the country. However, there are some specific points concerning this issue and IFA that are noteworthy:

  1. In determining whether there is an objective basis for fearing persecution in the IFA, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) must consider the personal circumstances of the claimant, and not just general evidence concerning other persons who live there.Note 21
  2. The RPD must consider the circumstances of those persons in the IFA who are situated similarly to the claimant.Note 22
  3. In assessing the particular circumstances of the claimant, the RPD may consider the condition of family members who have sought refuge in the IFA.Note 23
  4. The nature and the agents of the persecution feared ought to suggest that the persecution would be confined to particular areas of the country.Note 24 In a case where the agents of persecution were the local police, the Court found that if the claimant was of no interest to the central authorities, the claimant may be able to relocate to other areas.Note 25 The fact that the agents of persecution are the central authority in the country does not necessarily prevent a finding that there is an IFA.Note 26
  5. If an individual had to remain in hiding to avoid problems, this would not be evidence of an IFA.Note 27 Similarly, if a person has to hide their sexual orientation in order to be safe, the IFA is not available.Note 28
  6. The presence of close relatives in the putative IFA, and the duration of previous residence and past employment there, may have a bearing on “whether or not it is ‘objectively reasonable’ for the claimant to live in … [the IFA] without fear of persecution”, rather than being matters merely of personal comfort or convenience.Note 29
  7. There is some lack of clarity concerning how the concept of cumulative harassment or cumulative grounds applies in the consideration of IFA.Note 30 In Karthikesu, the Court appears to find that experiences in the non-IFA area do not form part of a cumulative assessment when considering the IFA area. In Balasubramaniam, however, the Court suggests that depending on the tribunal’s other findings “… it [the tribunal] may or may not have to consider the question of the cumulative effect of all the incidents that occurred to the applicant at the hands of the Sri Lankan armed forces to determine whether these, together with the likelihood of continuing harassment at the hands of the authorities, might constitute persecution on a cumulative basis.”(Emphasis added). This statement seems to suggest that experiences in the non-IFA area can form part of a cumulative assessment when considering the IFA area.
  8. Large urban areas cannot be assumed to be an IFA by virtue of their population size alone.Note 31
  9. The fact that a putative location was “far away”, would not, without more, constitute a viable IFA.Note 32

8.3.2. Reasonable in All the Circumstances

The second prong of the IFA test may be stated as follows: would it be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking refugee status abroad?Note 33 The test is an objective one: is it objectively reasonable to expect the claimant to seek safety in a different part of the country? ThirunavukkarasuNote 34 sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable. The standard is high and requires proof of adverse conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimant in travelling to and in living in the IFA location.Note 35

An IFA cannot be speculative or theoretical only; it must be a realistic, attainable option. The claimant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or to undergo undue hardship in travelling there or staying there.Note 36 However, it is not enough for the claimant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.Note 37

A distinction must be maintained between the reasonableness of an IFA and humanitarian and compassionate considerations. The fact that a claimant might be better off in Canada, physically, economically and emotionally than in a safe place in his own country is not a factor to consider in assessing the reasonableness of the IFA.Note 38

Regarding the issue of “reasonable in all the circumstances”, the Court of Appeal has stated that the circumstances must be relevant to the IFA question. They cannot be catalogued in the abstract. They will vary from case to case.Note 39

The Federal Court has provided the following general guidance:

  1. The test is a flexible one that takes into account the particular situation of the claimant and the particular country involved.Note 40 The evidence, before the Refugee Division, of circumstances in the IFA must be more than general information and must be relevant to the claimant's specific circumstances.Note 41
  2. Psychological evidence is central to the question of whether an IFA is reasonable and cannot be disregarded.Note 42
  3. The regional conditions which would make an IFA reasonable must be considered.Note 43
  4. The presence or absence of family in the IFA is a factor in assessing reasonableness,Note 44 especially in the case of minor claimants.Note 45 However, the absence of relatives in an IFA would have to jeopardize the safety of a claimant before that factor would make an IFA unreasonable.Note 46
  5. A destroyed infrastructure and economy in the IFA, and the stability or instability of the government that is in place there, are relevant factors.Note 47 Instability alone is not the test of reasonableness,Note 48 nor is a disintegrating infrastructure.Note 49
  6. An IFA is not reasonable if it requires the perpetuation of human rights abuses.Note 50
  7. Hardship in accessing the IFA must be assessed.Note 51
  8. In gender-based claims, the Board must have regard to section C4 of the Gender Guidelines.Note 52
  9. (i) The Court has commented that the extent to which an applicant has settled in Canada is irrelevant to the question of whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an IFA.Note 53 As well, consideration of the presence of relatives in the country where asylum is sought is not relevant to the IFA test.Note 54

Table of Cases

  1. Abubakar, Fahmey Abdalla Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-572-92), Wetston, September 9, 1993
  2. Agimelen Oriazouwani, Winifred v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6440-10), Shore, July 8, 2011; 2011 FC 827
  3. 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.)
  4. Ahmed, Ishtiaq v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2931-99), Hansen, March 29, 2000
  5. Ajelal, Mustafa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4522-13), Diner, November 19, 2014; 2014 FC 1093
  6. Ali, Chaudhary Liaqat v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1461-92), Noël, January 20, 1994.
  7. Alvapillai, Ramasethu v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4226-97), Rothstein, August 14, 1998
  8. Aria, Ashraf v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2499-12), de Montigny, April 2, 2013; 2013 FC 324
  9. Arias Ultima, Angela Maria v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3984-12), Manson, January 25, 2013; 2013 FC 81
  10. Arunachalam, Sinnathamby v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-157-96), MacKay, August 14, 1996
  11. Ay, Hasan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4149-09), Boivin, June 21, 2010; 2010 FC 671
  12. Balasubramaniam, Veergathy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1902-93), McKeown, October 4, 1994
  13. Barragan Gonzalez, Julio Angelo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6335-13), Boswell, April 20, 2015; 2015 FC 502
  14. Cadena Ramirez, Francisco José v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5911-09), Rennie, December 20, 2010; 2010 FC 1276
  15. Calderon, Sonia Blancas v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5367-08), Near, March 8, 2010; 2010 FC 263
  16. Cartagena, Wilber Orlando v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-961-06), Mosley, March 4, 2008; 2008 FC 289
  17. Chand, Mool v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-61-14), Rennie, February 19, 2015; 2015 FC 21
  18. Chauhdry, Mukhtar Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3951-97), Wetston, August 17, 1998
  19. Chkiaou, Dimitri v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no., IMM-266-94), Cullen, March 7, 1995.
  20. Chowdhury, Swapan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5618-06), de Montigny, January 8, 2008; 2008 FC 18
  21. Dakpokpo, Hilary Usomhine v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4559-16), Zinn, June 13, 2017; 2017 FC 580
  22. Dhaliwal, Jasbir Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-364), MacKay, August 9, 1993
  23. Dhillon, Harbhagwant Singh v. S.S.C (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3256-93), Rouleau, March 17, 1994
  24. Dirshe, Safi Mohamud v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2124-96), Cullen, July 2, 1997
  25. 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.)
  26. Ehondor, Tosan Erhun v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2372-17), Brown, December 14, 2017; 2017 FC 1143
  27. Elmi, Mahamud Hussein v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-580-98), McKeown, March 12, 1999
  28. Estrado Lugo, Regina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1166-09), O’Keefe, February 18, 2010; 2010 FC 170
  29. Farrah, Sahra Said v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-694-92), Reed, October 5, 1993
  30. Fernando, Joseph Stanley v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6986), McKeown, May 19, 1993
  31. Fosu, Frank Atta v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-935-08), Zinn, October 8, 2008; 2008 FC 1135
  32. Gallo Farias, Alejandrina Dayna v. M.C.I.(F.C., no. IMM-658-08), Kelen, September 16, 2008; 2008 FC 1035
  33. Gosal, Pardeep Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2316-97), Reed, March 11, 1998
  34. Hashmat, Suhil v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2331-96), Teitelbaum, May 9, 1997
  35. Hasnain, Khalid v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-962-92), McKeown, December 14, 1995
  36. Hassan, Liban v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3634-98), Campbell, April 14, 1999
  37. Hernandez Cardozo, Eduardo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5095-11), Shore, February 9, 2012; 2012 FC 190
  38. I.M.P.P. v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4049-09), Mosley, March 9, 2010; 2010 FC 259
  39. Idrees, Muhammad v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4136-13), Diner, December 10, 2014; 2014 FC 1194
  40. Iqbal, Sherry v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3224-17), McDonald, March 15, 2018; 2018 FC 299
  41. Jeyachandran, Senthan v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-799-94), McKeown, March 30, 1995
  42. Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-711-07), Mosley, December 21, 2007; 2007 FC 1354
  43. 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.)
  44. Kaillyapillai, Srivasan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1263-96), Richard, February 27, 1997
  45. Kaler, Minder Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-794-93), Cullen, February 3, 1994
  46. 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.)
  47. Karthikesu, Cumariah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2998-93), Strayer, May 26, 1994
  48. Kayumba, Bijou Kamwanga v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1920-09), Beaudry, February 10, 2010; 2010 FC 138
  49. Khan, Naqui Mohd v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4127-01), Rothstein, July 26, 2002
  50. Kulanthavelu, Gnanasegaram v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-57-93), Gibson, December 3, 1993
  51. Lopez Martinez, Heydi Vanessa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5081-09), Pinard, May 25, 2010; 2010 FC 550
  52. Losowa Osengosengo, Victorine v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4132-13), Gagné, March 13, 2014; 2014 FC 244
  53. Manoharan, Vanajah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1156-92), Rouleau, December 6, 1993.
  54. Masalov, Sergey v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7207-13), Diner, March 4, 2015; 2015 FC 277
  55. Megag, Sahra Abdilahi v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-822-92), Rothstein, December 10, 1993
  56. Mimica, Milanka v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3014-95), Rothstein, June 19, 1996.
  57. Moreb, Sliman v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-287-05), von Finckenstein, July 5, 2005; 2005 FC 945
  58. Mortocian, Alexandru v. M.C.I. (.FC. no., IMM-3837-12), Kane, December 7, 2012; 2012 FC 1447
  59. Moya, Jaime Olvera v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5436-01), Beaudry, November 6, 2002
  60. Muhammed, Falululla Peer v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5122-11), Harrington , February 17, 2012; 2012 FC 226
  61. Murillo Taborda, Lissed v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-9365-12), Kane, September 17, 2013; 2013 FC 957
  62. Nadarajah, Sivasothy Nathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4215-93), Simpson, July 26, 1994
  63. Naguleswaran, Pathmasilosini (Naguleswaran) v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1116-94), Muldoon, April 19, 1995.
  64. Nzayisenga, Jean Claude v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5203-11), Mandamin, September 30, 2012; 2012 FC 1103
  65. Okafor, Sara v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6848-10), Beaudry, August 17, 2011; 2011 FC 1002
  66. 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.)
  67. Playasova, Liudmila Fedor v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3931-02), Martineau, July 18, 2003; 2003 FC 901
  68. Premanathan, Gopalasamy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4423-96), Simpson, August 29, 1997
  69. Rabbani, Sayed Moheyudee v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-236-96), Noël, January 16, 1997
  70. Ramirez Martinez, Jorge Armando v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1284-09), Snider, June 1, 2010; 2010 FC 600
  71. Randhawa, Faheem Anwar v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5621-93), Rouleau, August 12, 1994
  72. Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.A., no. A-348-99), Létourneau, Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000; [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.)
  73. Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).
  74. Ratnam, Selvanayagam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1881-94), Richard, March 31, 1995
  75. Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996
  76. Rumb, Serge v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1481-98), Reed, February 12, 1999
  77. Salibian v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 250 (C.A.)
  78. Sangha, Karamjit Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1555-98), Reed, October 28, 1998
  79. Sanno, Aminata v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2124-95), Tremblay-Lamer, April 25, 1996
  80. Sarker, Ataur Rahman v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-5515-04), Snider, March 11, 2005; 2005 FC 353
  81. Scott, Dailon Ronald v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2691-12), Gagné, September 10, 2012; 2012 FC 1066
  82. Selvakumaran, Sivachelam v. M.C.I (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5103-01), Mckeown, May 31, 2002
  83. Sharbdeen: 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.)
  84. Siddiq, Dawood v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1684-03), Harrington, March 31, 2004; 2004 FC 490
  85. Sikiratu Iyile, Sandra v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6609-10), Harrington, July 25, 2011; 2011 FC 928
  86. 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.)
  87. Singh, Harminder v. M.C.I. (F.C`. no. IMM-4333-13), Gleason, March 20, 2014; 2014 FC 269
  88. Singh, Sucha v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-91), Dubé, June 23, 1993
  89. Singh, Swarn v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1409-92), Rothstein, May 4, 1994.
  90. Smirnova, Svetlana v. M.C.I. (FC., no. IMM-6641-12), Noël, April 12 2013; 2013 FC 347
  91. Sokol, Sterbyci v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1767-09), O’Keefe, December 8, 2009; 2009 FC 1257
  92. Syvyryn, Ganna v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1569-09), Snider, October 13, 2009; 2009 FC 1027
  93. Tahlil, Mohamed Sugule v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5920-10), Zinn, July 5, 2011; 2011 FC 817
  94. 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.)
  95. Thevarajah, Anton Felix v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-695-04), Mosley, November 24, 2004; 2004 FC 1654
  96. Thevasagayam, Ebenezer Thevaraj v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-252-97), Tremblay-Lamer, October 23, 1997
  97. Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.)
  98. Utoh, Helen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6120-11), Rennie, April 10, 2012; 2012 FC 399
  99. Vidal, Daniel Fernando v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-644-92), Gibson, May 15, 1997
  100. Yoganathan, Kandasamy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3588-97), Gibson, April 20, 1998
  101. Zaytoun, Hussein v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1769-14), Mactavish, October 2, 2014; 2014 FC 939
  102. 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.)

Notes

Note 1

Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710.

Return to note 1 referrer

Note 2

Ibid.

Return to note 2 referrer

Note 3

Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.).

Return to note 3 referrer

Note 4

Rasaratnam, 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

In 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

In 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 …)

In 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), [1990] 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; Kaler, 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.

In 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 Rasaratnam, 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; Zaytoun, Hussein 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

Ibid.

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; [2001] 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

In 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

In 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

Previous | Table of Contents | Next