Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Refugee Appeal Division's Internal Flight Alternative Decision

Date: 20260505 Docket: IMM-4415-25 Citation: 2026 FC 601 Ottawa, Ontario, May 5, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Appeal Division ( “[NAME]” ), dated February 7, 2025, confirming the determination made by the Refugee Protection Division ( “[NAME]” ) that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 (the “ IRPA ” ) . The determinative issue was the existence of a viable internal flight alternative ( “IFA” ) in Delhi or Lucknow, India. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I find that the [NAME]’s decision is reasonable. This application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant is a 36-year-old citizen of India. [ 4 ] On August 2, 2022, the Applicant agreed to hold a stranger’s bag while the stranger used the washrooms. Once the stranger had left, police arrived and demanded that the Applicant hand over the bag. Inside the bag, the Applicant describes that the police found weapons, ammunition, Khalistan literature, and a map for plans to carry out attacks on various locations in India. [ 5 ] The Applicant stated in his Basis of Claim ( “BOC” ) narrative that the police detained him for two days and subjected him to physical and psychological abuse. After the Applicant’s family paid a bribe to the police, they released him on certain conditions. The Applicant states that the police took his photo and fingerprints and made him sign a blank document. The Applicant further states that the police forced him to agree to go to a police station every month and produce the stranger who had asked him to hold the bag. [ 6 ] The Applicant’s BOC narrative describes that, on October 1, 2022, the police gave him a deadline to provide the stranger by November 1, 2022. On October 2, 2022, the Applicant fled to New Delhi and applied for a Canadian visa. [ 7 ] On December 29, 2022, the Applicant left India and claimed refugee protection soon after arriving in Canada. [ 8 ] In a decision dated October 3, 2024, the [NAME] determined that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA . The [NAME] found that the Applicant did not face a perspective risk from his peaceful actions in support of Khalistan while in Canada and that the Applicant had an IFA in Delhi or Lucknow. The Applicant appealed this decision to the [NAME]. [ 9 ] In a decision dated February 7, 2025, the [NAME] confirmed the [NAME]’s decision. The determinative issue was the existence of an IFA in Delhi or Lucknow. [ 10 ] The [NAME] relied on the two-pronged IFA analysis to determine that (1) the Applicant does not face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention Ground under section 96 of the IRPA or, on a balance of probabilities, a risk described in section 97 of the IRPA in the IFA location, and (2) it is reasonable in all the circumstances [NAME] to seek refuge in the IFA location ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)([NAME]) , 1991 CanLII 13517 at p 709 (FCA)). [ 11 ] Regarding the first prong of the analysis, the [NAME] found that the Applicant’s current activities in support of Khalistan while he is in Canada do not make him a high-profile figure and thus, he is unlikely to have attracted the attention of Indian authorities. In support of this finding, the [NAME] cited information from the National Documentation Package ( “NDP” ) showing that the police typically do not track peaceful Khalistan supporters. The [NAME] further determined that the police interest in the Applicant was to extract bribes.

Accordingly, the [NAME] noted that the Indian police would be unlikely to have released the Applicant on a bribe if they believed that he was a terrorist. [ 12 ] On the second prong of the IFA analysis, the [NAME] determined that the suggested IFA would be reasonable. The [NAME] cited the NDP to determine that the Applicant would not face unreasonable circumstances in the IFA locations based on his language or religion, as Punjabi is commonly spoken and there is a sizeable Sikh community in Delhi and Lucknow. The [NAME] also determined that the Applicant would not be prevented from finding accommodation despite the existence of the [NAME] (the “[NAME]” ) and Zonal Integrated Police Network ( “Police Network” ), which verify tenants. Because the Applicant was detained without being charged or arrested, the [NAME] concluded that the Applicant’s detention was unlikely to have been recorded in either [NAME] or the Police Network. [ 13 ] This is the decision presently under review.

III. Issue and Standard of Review [ 14 ] The sole issue in this judicial review is whether the [NAME]’s decision is reasonable. [ 15 ] The parties submit that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 ( “ [NAME] ” ). I agree. [ 16 ] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review ( [NAME] at paras 12-13). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible, and justified ( [NAME] at para 15). A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker ( [NAME] at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision-maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences ( [NAME] at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135). [ 17 ] For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant ( [NAME] at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision-maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances ( [NAME] at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” ( [NAME] at para 100).

IV. Analysis [ 18 ] The Applicant submits that the [NAME] failed to properly analyze the risks the Applicant faces within the first prong of the IFA analysis, as the evidence shows that the police forced the Applicant to provide his signature on a blank document and fingerprints which may have resulted in him confessing to crimes he did not commit. The Applicant further submits that the [NAME] did not consider the elevated risk that the Applicant faces because he failed to comply with conditions upon his release. Moreover, the Applicant maintains that the [NAME] lacked evidence to show that the Applicant’s detention would not be found in [NAME] or Police Network and thus prevent him from obtaining accommodation. Regarding the second prong of the IFA analysis, the Applicant submits that he would be forced to live in hiding in the proposed IFA locations. He maintains that the [NAME] selectively assessed the NDP’s description of discrimination against Sikh and Khalistan supporters and that he would need to conceal his whereabouts from his family and friends in order to avoid police interference. [ 19 ] The Respondent submits that the Applicant provided insufficient evidence to show that the police would have the motivation to track the Applicant in the proposed IFA locations. [NAME], the Respondent relies on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 70 ( “ [NAME] ” ), to submit that it is speculative [NAME] to allege that the police will track him across the country. The Respondent also maintains that the [NAME] reasonably concluded that there was not an on-going investigation of the Applicant because the continued visits from the police to the Applicant’s mother were only to collect bribes. Concerning the Applicant’s pro-Khalistan support within Canada, the Respondent submits that the [NAME] relied reasonably on the NDP evidence to conclude that the Applicant would not face transnational repression or country-wide targeting as a low-level supporter. The Respondent further maintains that the [NAME]’s decision on the second prong of the IFA analysis is reasonable because the Applicant failed to show concrete evidence that he would be forced to live in hiding in the IFA locations. [ 20 ] In my view, the [NAME]’s decision is reasonable. [ 21 ] On the first prong of the IFA analysis, the [NAME] assessed whether the Applicant was at risk from the police due to his detention based on the entirety of the evidence. The [NAME] accepted that the Applicant had been made to sign a blank document, give his fingerprints, and take a photograph of himself. Yet it determined that these facts did not mean that he was entered into [NAME] or Police Network. The [NAME] based this finding on the fact that the Applicant had been released from detention after only two days due to his family paying a bribe. On subsequent visits that the Applicant was obliged to make to the police station, the [NAME] noted that the police did not question him about militant activities or the whereabouts of the stranger who had left him with the bag, rather they forced him to clean or provide other services. Likewise, although the police continued to visit the Applicant’s mother’s home, they left upon receiving a small bribe. The [NAME] determined that these facts affirm the [NAME]’s finding that the Applicant’s detention was extrajudicial and thus there was no formal charge or first instance that would have been recorded in [NAME] or Police Network. [ 22 ] Contrary to the Applicant’s submissions, these facts are fundamentally different than those at issue in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 312 ( “ Wijekoon ” ). In that case, the [NAME] had concluded that the police officers detained and intended to arrest the applicant in their official capacity, rather than acting extrajudicially ( Wijekoon at paras 8, 10, 12, 17). Because of these charges, the Court determined that the [NAME] was required to have provided reasons to support their conclusion that the authorities would be unmotivated to pursue the applicant for non-compliance with police directions. However, in this case, the [NAME] affirmed the [NAME]’s determination that the Indian police acted extrajudicially in detaining the Applicant and were motivated to receive bribes rather than investigate alleged terrorism. As such, the [NAME] found insufficient evidence to support that the police intended to arrest the Applicant for failing to comply with their instructions or report any charges or non-compliance into [NAME] or Police Network. [ 23 ] Accordingly, I agree with the Respondent that this context is more similar to [NAME] , where the applicants had fled India after they had been detained by the police for alleged ties to militant groups that support the Khalistan movement. The applicants in [NAME] had been detained, forced to sign a blank document and provide their fingerprints, and they were released after three days following the payment of a bribe ( [NAME] at para 5). [ADDRESS] determined that it was reasonable for the [NAME] to have concluded that the applicants’ detention and the continued visits from the police to their relatives’ homes was not indicative of continued motivation to pursue the applicants. [ADDRESS] emphasized that, where their detention is extrajudicial or beyond police authority, applicants must provide sufficient evidence to establish a likelihood that their detention would have been entered into [NAME] ( [NAME] at para 22). Like the applicants in [NAME] , the Applicant in this case did not provide evidence to the [NAME] to support that his extrajudicial detention would have been registered in the nation-wide tracking systems. [ 24 ] Regarding the second prong of the IFA analysis, I note that the threshold to establish that an IFA location is unreasonable is high and requires actual and concrete evidence of conditions that would jeopardize the Applicant’s life and safety, on the balance of probabilities ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 967 at para 35). In my view, the [NAME] reasonably determined that the Applicant’s submissions failed to reach this threshold. [ 25 ] First, as I have determined that the [NAME] reasonably found that the Applicant is not likely in any of the tracking systems in India, I also find that the [NAME] reasonably determined that there was no evidence to support that the Applicant would be prevented from finding adequate accommodation. [ 26 ] There is further a lack of evidence [NAME]’s submission that he will need to live in hiding or conceal his location from his friends and family. The Applicant did not make submissions on this point to the [NAME] in his appeal, but nevertheless relies on [NAME] (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 93 ( “ [NAME] ” ), in this proceeding to submit that his friends and family could be leveraged by the police to locate him in a new city and force him to live in hiding. [ 27 ] I do not find that this case is of assistance to the Applicant. In [NAME] , the agents of persecution were motivated to locate the applicant and continued to threaten the applicant against returning to Pakistan ( [NAME] at paras 50-52). However, in this case, the [NAME] relied on the record to determine that the police were not motivated to locate the Applicant and were instead only interested in collecting bribes. In this context, the Applicant and his family do not face the same risks as those in [NAME] simply by knowing his location. [ 28 ] I further note that the [NAME]’s decision assesses various factors that may have affected the reasonableness of the IFA locations and determined that these factors were insufficient to reach the high threshold required to find an IFA location unreasonable. For instance, the [NAME] relied on the NDP to determine that there is both a religious and linguistic community similar to the Applicant in the IFA locations. The [NAME] acknowledged that the treatment of Sikhs and Khalistan supporters in these locations is not ideal but nevertheless determined that the discrimination they face does not rise to the level of jeopardizing the Applicant’s life and safety. Given the [NAME]’s assessment, I find that the Applicant’s submissions that the NDP was selectively read, without pointing to any specific contradictions, amount to an impermissible request to reweigh the evidence before the [NAME]. [ 29 ] I therefore find that the [NAME]’s decision reflects the factual and legal constraints applicable to both the first and second prong of the IFA analysis ( [NAME] at para 85).

V. Conclusion [ 30 ] I find that the [NAME]’s decision is reasonable. The [NAME] assessed the entirety of the Applicant’s circumstances, including his current peaceful support for Khalistan, the continued actions of police in India, and the Applicant’s description of his detention and release. It concluded that these factors could not establish that the Applicant would be at risk in the IFA locations or that these locations would be unreasonable.

I therefore find that the Applicant has not raised any issue that warrants this Court’s intervention and dismiss this judicial review. [ 31 ] The parties have not raised any question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-4415-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: This application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question to certify. “[NAME].” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4415-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: April 15, 2026

JUDGMENT and reasons: AHMED J. DATED: May 5, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME]. Barristers and Solicitors Mississauga, [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent