Federal Court Rejects Refugee Protection Claim Due to Lack of Persecution Risk Evidence

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260702 Docket: IMM-6547-25 Citation: 2026 FC 888 Ottawa, Ontario, July 2, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]-[NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicants, [APPELLANT] [[NAME] Applicant] and [APPELLANT] [[NAME]], are a mother and adult son who applied for refugee protection in Canada claiming persecution by the police and the [NAME] [[NAME]] based on their Christian religion. In a decision dated March 4, 2025, the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] refused the Applicants’ appeal, finding the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] had correctly determined neither of the Applicants were Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, and both had an internal flight alternative [IFA] in India [Decision]. [ 2 ] The Applicants seek judicial review of the Decision, arguing it is unreasonable because the RAD erred by finding they have a viable IFA. The Respondent submits the Applicants have not demonstrated any reviewable errors rendering the Decision unreasonable. [ 3 ] For the following reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background [ 4 ] The Applicants are citizens of India and are Christian. While living in Punjab, they would hold religious gatherings in their home, angering their non-Christian neighbours. The Applicants received threats from the local leader of the [NAME], a Hindu nationalist group, and were accused of converting people to Christianity. [ 5 ] The Applicants described an incident where the [NAME] Applicant and her husband were detained by police and only released after payment of a bribe. At some unknown time, the [NAME] Applicant’s husband disappeared and is still missing. [ 6 ] Not only do the Applicants fear persecution by the [NAME] and the police based on their religion, but the [NAME] Applicant fears persecution from the police and [COMPANY] because of her gender. [ 7 ] The Applicants arrived in Canada in August 2023 and commenced their refugee protection application. The RPD rejected the Applicants’ claim on November 22, 2024, finding both Applicants have an IFA in Kolkata, Hyderabad, and Chennai, India. The RAD dismissed the Applicants’ appeal on March 4, 2025.

III. Decision Under Review [ 8 ] The RAD concluded the RPD had not properly articulated the test for determining whether there is a viable IFA. However, this was a minor error as the RPD applied the correct test. A. The First Prong of the IFA Test [ 9 ] The RAD determined the police visit to the [NAME] demonstrates some interest by corrupt police officers to continue the local extortion of the Applicants, but not enough to demonstrate motivation to harm them in Kolkata. Because religious conversions are not illegal in Punjab and there is no evidence there was or is a legitimate, ongoing police investigation, there is insufficient reason to suggest the Punjab police have the motivation to influence the police in other states to pursue the Applicants in Kolkata. There is also insufficient evidence to suggest the [NAME] is searching [NAME], know about the [NAME]’s whereabouts, or would pursue the Applicants in the proposed IFA location. [ 10 ] The RAD further determined the Applicants had not demonstrated their profile as Christians in India subjected them to risks rising to the level of a serious possibility of persecution. The Applicants did not make submissions as to how their intersectional profiles should have been considered differently to how the RPD assessed them. [ 11 ] The risks in the proposed IFA location of Kolkata, India are not zero, but do not rise above the level of a mere possibility of persecution or harm. B. The Second Prong of the IFA Test [ 12 ] The Applicants have not demonstrated it would be unreasonable [NAME] to relocate to Kolkata. The RAD found evidence on federal spending from [NAME] unpersuasive and that the [NAME] Applicant misrepresented herself as a single woman. Acknowledging the prevalence of violence against women and the gendered impacts of employment discrimination and housing, the RAD found the [NAME] Applicant would still benefit from the presence of the [NAME], a [NAME]. For the RAD, there was no reason the Applicants cannot receive the same support from extended male family members as the [NAME].

IV. Issues and Standard of Review [ 13 ] The sole issue to be decided is whether the Decision is reasonable. Both parties agree the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. In this respect, the role of the reviewing court is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an  “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”  and is  “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME], 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [ [NAME] ];  [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 64). [ 14 ] Although the party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating the decision is unreasonable, the reviewing court must ask “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility” ( [NAME] at para 99).

V. Analysis [ 15 ] The test for establishing the viability of a proposed IFA is a well-established and conjunctive two-pronged assessment ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) ([NAME]) , 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA) at 711; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) ([NAME]) , 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA) at 597). For an IFA to be viable, the decision maker must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities: (1) whether there is a serious possibility of persecution to the applicant in the proposed IFA location; and (2) considering all the circumstances, whether it would be unreasonable [NAME] to relocate to the proposed IFA? A. The First Prong of the IFA Test [ 16 ] The Applicants first argue the RAD erred with respect to determining whether the visit to the [NAME] was sufficiently close to be considered local. In particular, the RAD did not identify the source relied on for the distance between the Applicants’ home and the [NAME]’s home. While in the same state, the two homes are in different districts. The Applicants also argue the [NAME] remains at risk despite no threats having been made against her and suggest threats or actual incidents of violence are not necessary to establish the agent of persecution’s motivation ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 410 at paras 26–27). [ 17 ] The Applicants similarly take issue with the RAD’s finding that the police lack the necessary motivation to pursue them given the objective evidence that religious minorities are targeted regardless of whether formal anti-conversion laws are enacted as arbitrary use of the law and security forces are still used. Because the Christian community is spread across India, the Applicants argue the risk exists everywhere. Further, the Applicants submit the RAD’s conclusions regarding religious discrimination are contrary to the objective evidence which supports the religious persecution of women rising to the level of persecution required by section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (SC 2001, c. 27) [ IRPA ]. [ 18 ] The Respondent generally argues the Applicants have conflated their own credibility with the means and motivation of the agents of persecution and suggests persons who have experienced past persecution do not benefit from a favourable presumption of an established fear of persecution ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1410 at para 15). It is the Applicants’ onus to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate their agents of persecution had the requisite means and motivation to pursue them. [ 19 ] The Respondent rightly points out once the RAD had identified Kolkata as a viable IFA, the Applicants had the burden to show it would not be a viable option ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 155 at para 30). In my view, the Applicants did not do that. [ 20 ] The RAD accepted there is an indication of a recent past effort from the Punjab police to continue to locally extort the Applicants by visiting the [NAME]. The RAD also noted, according to the Applicants’ testimony, the sister’s house is located in and around Jalandhar, Punjab while their home is located in and around Tanda, Punjab. A review of a map included in the documentary evidence shows the two cities are approximately 20 kilometres from one another, leading to the RAD’s conclusion the [NAME] lives in the same state as the Applicants. [ 21 ] The RAD also acknowledged the documentary evidence supports the suggestion that the police can sometimes find people they are looking for in other states where there is a real documented police investigation or court process and a crime sufficiently serious to warrant the use of interstate resources. However, given these factors are absent here, it was reasonable for the RAD to conclude the Applicants cannot claim to be persons of interest at risk of continued persecution ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 510 at paras 29–30). [ 22 ] Given the documentary evidence, I also find reasonable the RAD’s determination there is insufficient evidence demonstrating the police can effectively track or harm people in other state locations in the absence of documents and proper investigatory procedures. [ 23 ] It is the Applicants’ onus to provide evidence to establish their profile, including evidence they were charged with a criminal offence in India ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1322 at paras 28–29). They did not provide that evidence. [ 24 ] As the RAD explained, the evidence did not demonstrate the agents of persecution have sought out the Applicants in a manner suggesting they have an ongoing motivation to look for them and harm them in the IFA location. [ 25 ] Regarding the Applicants’ fear of the [NAME], the Applicants have not heard from the group after they left the immediate area and testified the [NAME] does not know anything about their family members living in India. In these circumstances, I find it was reasonable for the RAD to conclude there is insufficient evidence establishing the [NAME]’s ongoing means or motivation to harm the Applicants in the proposed IFA location. [ 26 ] I find the Applicants’ arguments about religious discrimination amount to a disagreement with the RAD’s treatment of the evidence. The RAD is presumed to have considered all the evidence when making its decision ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 559 at para 22). The RAD did not ignore the evidence but reasonably assessed the evidence on the treatment of Christians in India. It was reasonable for the RAD to find the evidence did not demonstrate the agents of persecution had the means and motivation to pursue the Applicants in the proposed IFA location or that they would be facing persecution in Kolkata due to their religion. B. The Second Prong of the IFA Test [ 27 ] The Applicants again take issue with the RAD’s characterization of certain evidence. The Applicants argue the RAD’s comment of the [NAME] being a “[NAME]” is a misrepresentation of his age as he is only 20 years old with a high school education and is still dependent on his mother. The Respondent notes the Applicants’ argument is itself a misrepresentation of the RAD’s comments which were focused on the [NAME]’s presence as a male, not his education or dependence on his mother. [ 28 ] Similarly, the Applicants argue the evidence does not demonstrate the [NAME] Applicant could benefit from the same male support as her daughter since they exchanged their residence with the [NAME] Applicant’s brother-in-law for money to allow them to leave India. [ 29 ] In my view, these submissions do not demonstrate an error with the characterization of the evidence made by the RAD. The RAD considered the Applicants’ gender, age, education, work experience, ethnicity, languages, religion, and access to housing and services, finding the conditions would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh for them in the IFA. That is what is expected in an analysis of the Applicants’ situation with regard to the second prong of the IFA test. [ 30 ] The Applicants further argue the RAD failed to undertake an intersectional assessment of their profiles, arguing the [NAME] Applicant’s religion, gender, and lack of male support aggravate her circumstances. I do not agree with the Applicants’ submission. The RAD has not failed to consider intersectionality when reviewing the risks to the Applicants but instead noted the Applicants have not articulated any intersectional argument about how their profiles should be viewed as opposed to the way the RPD viewed them. Despite this, the RAD undertook an intersectional analysis and concluded the risks do not amount to more than a mere possibility of persecution or risk as articulated under section 97 of the IRPA . In my view, the RAD considered all of the Applicants’ personal circumstances together with the documentary evidence and reasonably found, while there are some risks of discrimination or difficulty, those circumstances do not amount to unreasonableness [NAME] to relocate to Kolkata.

VI. Conclusion [ 31 ] The IFA assessment by the RAD is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis justified in light of the applicable facts and law, rendering the RAD’s Decision reasonable. [ 32 ] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-6547-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed without costs. There is no question to be certified. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6547-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT], ET AL. v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: [NAME]) DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 23, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME]. DATED: JULY 2, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COUNSEL] [NAME] and Solicitor [NAME]) [NAME] of Canada [NAME]) For The RESPONDENT