Federal Court Rejects Refugee Status Claim Due to Viable Internal Flight Alternatives

Date: 20260210 Docket: IMM-24603-24 Citation: 2026 FC 189 Ottawa, Ontario, February 10, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal from the Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]], agreeing that he has viable internal flight alternatives [IFA] in three cities in Jordan: [NAME], and Fuheis. [ 2 ] This application for judicial review is dismissed as the decision under review is reasonable. [ 3 ] The Applicant, [NAME], is a Jordanian national. He claims a fear of harm from his former girlfriend [NAME]’s cousin, her family, and her tribe, arising from their rejection of an interfaith relationship. [NAME] was betrothed to her cousin, [NAME], through an arranged marriage. The Applicant alleges that [NAME], unhappy on learning of their relationship, stabbed him as a warning before later threatening to kill him. He further alleges that [NAME]’s father and brother threatened both him and [NAME], assaulted [NAME], and that [NAME] later abducted, sexually assaulted, and beat the Applicant. [ 4 ] The Applicant states that he went into hiding at the [NAME] in Jordan before travelling to Canada to reside with his paternal aunt in September 2022. He further alleges that on October 2, 2022, men dressed as police invaded his family home and threatened to kill him if he returned. [NAME] Decision [ 5 ] The [NAME] found that the Applicant is “neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection” pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27. The determinative issue in the proceeding was the availability of [NAME] in Jordan. [ 6 ] [NAME] is surrogate protection and arises only where a claimant lacks a viable IFA. Once an IFA is raised, the claimant bears the onus to demonstrate that no viable IFA exists. The [NAME] applied the two-pronged test established by the Federal Court of Appeal in [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , [1992] 1 FC 706 (FCA) [ [NAME] ], which requires both the absence of serious risk in the IFA and the reasonableness of relocation. The [NAME] determined that [NAME], Aqaba, and Fuheis in Jordan are viable [NAME] and that the Applicant can reasonably relocate to any of these cities. [ 7 ] With respect to the [NAME], the [NAME] noted that the claimant testified he feared [NAME] and, in particular, [NAME]’s cousin [NAME]. The [NAME] found that in all reported incidents the Applicant described being attacked or targeted only by [NAME], alone or with others, and that there was no evidence of tribal escalation, tribal reconciliation processes, or targeting by other members of either the Al-Saleh clan or the [NAME]. The [NAME] concluded that it was more likely than not that the [NAME] were [NAME] and/or [NAME] members, and found the allegation of tribal pursuit to be speculative. [ 8 ] The [NAME] found that the Applicant failed to establish the continued interest of the [NAME] or their motivation to pursue him throughout Jordan. The last reported incident occurred in October 2022, when his father reported a break-in at the family home and threats against the Applicant. There had been no further break-ins, threats, or contact since that incident, although it was later claimed that vehicles associated with [NAME] continued to monitor the home. The [NAME] rejected this surveillance claim as not credible, emphasizing that the Basis of Claim instructed claimants to “include everything that is important for your claim” , that the Applicant had counsel’s assistance, and that neither his father’s letter nor other supporting documents mentioned continued monitoring. The [NAME] found the Applicant’s explanation for this omission unreasonable and concluded that his testimony on this point “evolved” in response to concerns about ongoing targeting. [ 9 ] The [NAME] further found no credible evidence that [NAME] or [NAME] continued searching for the Applicant after October 2, 2022. [ 10 ] While the Applicant asserted that he would face issues as a Christian, the [NAME] found no concrete evidence that his religion would jeopardize his life or safety in the proposed [NAME]. The [NAME] further concluded that the Applicant’s account of neighbourhood mistreatment in Amman did not rise to the level of serious harm and was both location-specific and insufficient to undermine the reasonableness of relocation. [ 11 ] The [NAME] concluded that the Applicant failed to establish that [NAME] or [NAME] remain motivated to locate him in any of the proposed [NAME] and concluded that the first prong of the IFA test had not been met. [ 12 ] On the second prong, the Applicant identified no basis, other than fear of being found, for why he could not relocate safely. The [NAME] found relocation reasonable given his age, education, language abilities, work experience, travel experience, and demonstrated adaptability, including his ability to settle in Canada. [ 13 ] The [NAME] ultimately concluded that the Applicant has viable [NAME] in Jordan. [NAME] Decision [ 14 ] On appeal, the Applicant argued that the [NAME] erred in finding a lack of motivation and means, failed to account for honour-based motivations, underestimated tribal influence, and misapprehended Jordan’s geography. However, it was noted that the Applicant introduced no new evidence and did not request an oral hearing. The Applicant also did not contest the reasonableness of the three [NAME], and the [NAME] independently agreed that [NAME], and Fuheis are reasonable [NAME], given his language ability, education, cultural familiarity, and Jordanian nationality. [ 15 ] The [NAME] upheld the [NAME]’s finding that the Applicant failed to establish that the [NAME] remain motivated to pursue him, noting the absence of any attempts by [NAME] to contact or locate the Applicant or his family since October 2022. [ 16 ] The [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that the October 2, 2022 “home invasion” was more likely a reaction to [NAME] confronting [NAME] than evidence of sustained pursuit, and emphasized that no contact or efforts to locate the Applicant had occurred since that date. [ 17 ] Although a finding on means was unnecessary given the lack of motivation, the [NAME] addressed the issue and agreed that there was no evidence that [NAME]’s [NAME] had become involved in the dispute or possessed the capacity to pursue the Applicant. [ 18 ] As the Applicant did not challenge the [NAME]’s findings on the reasonableness of relocation, the [NAME] upheld those findings and confirmed the availability of viable [NAME]. Analysis [ 19 ] The sole issue is whether the [NAME]’s determination regarding the viable [NAME] available to the Applicant is reasonable. [ 20 ] In substance, the Applicant asks this Court to re-weigh the evidence considered by the [NAME] and reach a different conclusion. With respect, that is not the role of the Court on judicial review: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 125. [ 21 ] The Applicant raises three concerns regarding the [NAME]’s and the [NAME]’s analysis of motivation under the first prong of the IFA test. [ 22 ] I turn first to the Applicant’s submission regarding honour-based motivation. The Applicant submits that the [NAME] erred by failing to account for evidence that [NAME]’s father viewed the Applicant’s relationship with his daughter as an issue of honour tied to their Muslim faith. The Applicant further argues that the [NAME] did not address evidence that [NAME] was assaulted by her father and brother, which he says is central to assessing whether honour would motivate the alleged [NAME]. The Applicant submits that ignoring this evidence constitutes a reviewable error, relying on [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [1999] 1 FC 53 (CA) and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 3, for the proposition that a failure to grapple with contradictory or significant evidence may render a decision unreasonable. [ 23 ] Contrary to the Applicant’s submission, the reasons reflect that both the [NAME] and the [NAME] expressly considered the Applicant’s argument that [NAME] was motivated by honour, including reliance on the priest’s letter, objective country evidence, and the interfaith nature of the relationship. The [NAME] nonetheless concluded that there was no evidence that [NAME]’s father or brother had ever contacted or pursued the Applicant or his family since October 2, 2022, and that the only individual shown to have acted on any perceived honour concern was [NAME], who had exhibited no interest in pursuing the Applicant for the past two years. On that basis, the [NAME] reasonably found that the Applicant had not established that honour motivated the [NAME] to actively pursue him. [ 24 ] I turn next to the Applicant’s second argument concerning the invasion of his family home. The Applicant submits that the [NAME] were aware he had left Jordan but continued to threaten him because of his relationship with [NAME]. He argues that the [NAME]’s analysis is inconsistent with his father’s account of the home invasion. [ 25 ] In his written submissions, the Applicant reproduces the following excerpt from his father’s account of the home invasion: In the beginning of October 2 nd 2022, five people break into our house saying that they are police and they were asking for [NAME], we told them that [NAME] is outside of the country, one of them said to me give this message to [NAME], that if I see him again I will take his soul, after that I called [NAME] and I told him not to come back to Jordan because he will lose his life because of these Muslim's extremists family tribe even this is hard for me and his mother even though his mother have cancer and she needed to be by her side but we tire happy for him that he is in Canada safe and secure from all of this. [ 26 ] At paragraph 17 of its reasons, the [NAME] stated: I also find that, as the [NAME] have been silent for over 2 years and have not made any attempt to find the Appellant or contact his family, their motivation has not been established. Regarding the home invasion of October 2, 2022, the Appellant testified that some time after he came to Canada on September 19, 2022, he spoke directly with [NAME] and told her about the kidnapping and egregious assault committed by [NAME] and two other men. [NAME] confronted [NAME] shortly thereafter. I agree with the [NAME] that, on the balance of probabilities, it is more than likely that [NAME]’s invasion of the Appellant’s family home shortly thereafter, on October 2, 2022, was in response to his having been confronted by [NAME] and was likely undertaken as [NAME] suspected that the Appellant and [NAME] were still in touch with each other. There is no evidence that, since October 2, 2022, any member of [NAME], including [NAME], has been in contact in any way with the Appellant or his family . Although the Appellant testified at the Hearing, that his father had told him of cars circling the house periodically, monitoring the family home, this is not reflected in the father’s letter of support or in the letter of support from the Appellant’s friend, [NAME], and the Appellant has not referred to this item of testimony on appeal. I have considered the Appellant’s argument that [NAME] would not bother contacting the Appellant or his family because they know he is not in Jordan. [NAME] may well be aware of the Appellant’s absence from Jordan. I find, however, that, without any evidence to show any interest on the part of [NAME] for the past 2 years, that argument is speculative. As the [NAME] noted, the Federal Court has determined that it is reasonable to infer that an agent of harm does not have an ongoing interest in a claimant where they do not approach or threaten family members for information about the claimant. Even if [NAME] was aware that the Appellant is no longer in Jordan, without any evidence to indicate that [NAME] – or that any other member of [NAME] has attempted to locate the Appellant for the past 2 years – there is no evidentiary basis on which to find motivation on the part of the [NAME]. I find the Appellant has not established that the [NAME] are – or would in the future be motivated – to pursue the Appellant to the [NAME], were he to return to Jordan. [emphasis added] [ 27 ] The [NAME]’s reasons reflect a reasonable weighing of the evidence. The Applicant’s submission that the [NAME]’s findings conflict with his father’s account of threats by unidentified extremists reflects only one possible interpretation of the record. I find that the [NAME] considered the home invasion in the context of the prior confrontation between [NAME] and [NAME] and reasonably concluded that this confrontation was the likely motivator of the incident. The Applicant has pointed to no evidence that [NAME]’s father informed the home invaders that the Applicant was outside the country, nor any specific error in the [NAME]’s reasoning process, which is transparent and intelligible. [ 28 ] I turn next to the Applicant’s third argument on motivation. The Applicant challenges the [NAME]’s conclusion that a prolonged absence of contact undermines a finding of ongoing motivation by an agent of persecution. He submits that the [NAME]’s reliance on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 428 [ [NAME] ], is misplaced, arguing that in [NAME] there was no evidence of continued pursuit after the applicant’s departure from Mexico, whereas here there was contact involving the Applicant’s family. [ 29 ] Although the facts in [NAME] are distinguishable, its underlying principle remains applicable. In [NAME] , the Court found no evidence that [NAME], despite prior threats, would actively pursue the applicant throughout the country, whereas in the present case the visit by extremists to the Applicant’s family home constituted a post-departure contact. The [NAME] relied on [NAME] for the proposition that it is reasonable to infer a lack of ongoing interest where [NAME] do not approach or threaten family members to obtain information about an applicant’s whereabouts ( [NAME] at para 16, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 434 at para 26; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 1069 at paras 17–18). I agree that this was an appropriate reference. The [NAME] noted that the Applicant adduced no evidence of contact from [NAME]’s father or brother. The record also discloses no attempt by the alleged [NAME] to locate the Applicant. [ 30 ] Moreover, the central inquiry is the application of the first prong of the IFA test, under which the Applicant bears the burden of establishing that the proposed [NAME] are not viable. In this respect, the Applicant presented no evidence demonstrating that the three proposed [NAME] were unsafe or otherwise not viable due to the alleged motivation of the [NAME]. [ 31 ] Finally, the Applicant argues that the [NAME] erred in assessing the “means” available to the alleged [NAME] to locate him in the proposed [NAME]. In this regard, the Applicant states at paragraph 51 of his memorandum: Therefore, contrary to the [NAME]’s findings regarding means there was evidence with respect to [NAME]’s tribe’s ability to use connections to locate the Applicant in proposed [NAME]. There was objective evidence about tribal influence in Jordan and the use of personal connections to advance personal interests. Undoubtedly, for [NAME]’s family finding and punishing the Applicant for transgressing the family honour, especially given that he is Christian, would be a personal interest and that personal connections can be used to track the Applicant elsewhere. [ 32 ] I agree with the Respondent: [redacted] [emphasis added] [ 33 ] The [NAME] made no reviewable error. Its reasons are grounded in the record and reflect an evidentiary weighing that this Court must respect absent a finding of unreasonableness, which has not been established. [ 34 ] No question was proposed for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-24603-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed, and no question is certified. "Russel W. Zinn" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-24603-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: held by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: January 26, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: ZINN J. DATED: february 10, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], ON For The Applicant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA TORONTON, ON For The Respondent