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

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260618 Docket: IMM-12987-25 Citation: 2026 FC 819 Toronto, Ontario, June 18, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated May 26, 2025, by the Refugee Appeal Division [[NAME]] of the [NAME] [[NAME]], dismissing the Applicant’s appeal and confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [[NAME]] of the [NAME] to refuse the Applicant’s claim pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [ 2 ] As explained in greater detail below, this application for judicial review is dismissed, because [NAME] reasonably concluded that that the Applicant had a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] in Ghana.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Ghana who came to Canada on a student visa in November 2023 and subsequently claimed refugee protection. He alleges that he is at risk from [NAME] in Ghana, because he had written a report criticizing their actions, which resulted in his supervisor having the [NAME]’ equipment destroyed and the [NAME] therefore targeting him for harm. [ 4 ] In a decision dated December 20, 2024, the [NAME] refused the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection, with the determinative issue being the availability of an IFA in Ghana. [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed the [NAME]’s decision to [NAME].

III. Decision under Review [ 6 ] In the Decision that is the subject of this application for judicial review, [NAME] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the [NAME] that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and subsection 97(1), respectfully, of IRPA. As with the decision of the [NAME], the determinative issue before [NAME] was the availability of a viable IFA. [ 7 ] The Applicant sought to introduce new evidence in the appeal, which [NAME] rejected on the basis that the Applicant had not established, as required by subsection 110(4) of IRPA, that the evidence was not reasonably available at the time of the [NAME]’s decision. The Applicant also introduced what he described as a report that he prepared concerning why it would not be feasible for him to relocate to either of the proposed [NAME]. As this document contained the Applicant’s arguments about alleged errors by the [NAME], [NAME] noted that it would be considered as part of the Applicant’s submissions but that it did not represent new evidence. [ 8 ] In relation to the substantive analysis, [NAME] first considered the Applicant’s argument that the [NAME] had erred in identifying a material omission in his BOC that impacted his credibility. The [NAME] had found that the Applicant was credible in his testimony that he was injured by [NAME] after the report he submitted led to damage to the [NAME]’ equipment. However, the [NAME] also found that the Applicant did not establish that he received a threatening call after leaving his home area of Obuasi. While the Applicant testified at the hearing that he had received this call, stating that he should leave the country because the [NAME] would find him anywhere in Ghana, he had not mentioned this call in his original BOC narrative or in the addendum he filed prior to his [NAME] hearing. [ 9 ] [NAME] concluded that the [NAME] was correct to reject as unreasonable the Applicant’s explanation that he could not add everything about the call in the addendum or it would have been too long. [NAME] noted that the means and motivation of the [NAME] to locate him outside of his local area went to the heart of his claim and that he had added a number of other material details in the addendum he filed before his hearing. [NAME] found that the Applicant’s failure to mention the threatening call in his amended narrative impacted the credibility of that allegation. [ 10 ] [NAME] then turned to the first prong of the IFA test, whether the Applicant would face a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, face a risk as set out in section 97 of IRPA, in the proposed [NAME]. [NAME] noted the [NAME]’s argument that the [NAME] failed to consider his testimony about the means that the [NAME] could use to find him, including the financial resources available to them. [ 11 ] However, [NAME] observed that the presumption of truthfulness does not extend to speculation or inferences for which there is no evidentiary basis. It found that the Applicant had not provided a basis to establish his assertion that the [NAME] had a network in the various cities in which they built their homes. The Applicant had also not established his assertion that the [NAME] supported his argument that the [NAME] had any special reach throughout Ghana. [NAME] placed little weight upon an article authored by an environmentalist, and an affidavit sworn by the [NAME], for reasons including because neither document provided support for the source of the author’s knowledge of the information asserted. [ 12 ] In the absence of any country condition evidence to corroborate the Applicant’s suspicions about the [NAME]’ network of connections, [NAME] found that they did not have the means to harm him outside of his local area. [ 13 ] Similarly, [NAME] found that the [NAME] was correct that the [NAME] did not have the motivation to find him in the proposed [NAME]. While the Applicant testified that his sister told him that men came looking for him in November 2024, [NAME] agreed with the [NAME]’s concern that this was not mentioned in her affidavit. [NAME] also reasoned that the [NAME]’s affidavit referenced several attempts to kill the Applicant, but this was materially different than attempts to locate him after he left his local area. [ 14 ] Concluding that the Applicant had not satisfied the first prong of the IFA test, [NAME] turned to the second prong, which considered whether it would be reasonable for the Applicant to relocate to the proposed IFA locations. The Applicant testified that he would have few employment opportunities in the [NAME]. However, after considering his age, education and employment history, as well as the size of the proposed IFA locations, [NAME] agreed with the [NAME] that the Applicant had not established that it would be unreasonable for him to travel to or live in those locations. [ 15 ] As the Applicant had not met the test to demonstrate that the proposed IFA locations were not viable, [NAME] dismissed his appeal and confirmed the decision of the [NAME] that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

IV. Issue and Standard of Review [ 16 ] As the Applicant submits, the sole issue for the Court’s determination in this application is whether [NAME]’s finding that the Applicant has a viable IFA in Ghana is reasonable. [ 17 ] As is implicit in that articulation of the issue, the Decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, as informed by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ].

V. Analysis [ 18 ] To find a viable IFA exists, a decision-maker must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that: (a) a refugee claimant will not face a serious possibility of persecution and/or a likely risk to their life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture in the IFA location; and (2) the IFA location is reasonable in the claimant’s circumstances ( [APPELLANT] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA); [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), [1994] 1 FC 589, 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA)). [ 19 ] Once the possibility of an IFA is raised, the claimant bears the onus to establish that the proposed IFA is not viable by defeating at least one prong of the above test ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 496 at para 26). A. First prong of IFA test [ 20 ] Under the first prong of the IFA test, the [NAME] must consider both the means and motivation of the agents of persecution [AOP] to locate a claimant in the proposed IFA ( [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 167 [ [NAME] ] at para 46). [ 21 ] In support of his position that [NAME]’s analysis under the first prong of the test is unreasonable, the Applicant argues that he had provided evidence supporting his assertion that the AOP had both the means and motivation to locate him in the [NAME] that have been proposed by the [NAME]. The Applicant submits that [NAME] failed to engage with evidence as to the reach and resources of the AOP and generally with his evidence as to the AOP’s means and motivation. [ 22 ] At the hearing of this application, the Applicant’s counsel referred the Court in particular to the following documents: a Statement by the District Chief Executive of [NAME] (who counsel explained was the Applicant’s supervisor) [the Supervisor], dated November 25, 2024, in which the Supervisor stated that he was aware of the trauma that the Applicant experienced when he moved from town to town seeking survival. The Supervisor further stated that the Applicant later fled the scene but the AOP tracked him to his hiding location in Obuasi, described as a faraway city, and vowed to kill him for their losses [the Supervisor’s Statement]; a Press Release dated July 2, 2024, from the police in Accra, stating that the police had commenced an investigation into a shooting of three people; a Statutory Declaration, sworn on November 11, 2024, by a friend of the Applicant, who stated that the AOP had vowed to take the Applicant’s life anytime he is seen alone, compelling the Applicant to run to Canada for his safety; and a Statutory Declaration, sworn on December 16, 2024, by the [NAME], referring to attempts to kill the Applicant [the Sister’s Declaration]. [ 23 ] [NAME] found that the Applicant had not provided an evidentiary basis to support his speculation that the AOP had a network that would afford them the means to locate him in the proposed [NAME]. Similarly, after referencing the evidence on which the Applicant relied on appeal, [NAME] concluded that he did not establish that the AOP had the motivation to locate him in the [NAME]. [ 24 ] As noted earlier in these Reasons, [NAME]’s analysis of the AOP’s motivation took the Sister’s Declaration into account. While her evidence referred to attempts to kill the Applicant, [NAME] explained that this evidence was materially different from attempts to locate him after he left his local area. [ 25 ] Otherwise, [NAME]’s analyses of the AOP’s means and motivation do not expressly reference the evidence described above, upon which the Applicant’s counsel relied at the hearing of this application. However, consistent with [NAME]’s analysis with respect to the Sister’s Declaration, none of this evidence speaks to efforts to locate the Applicant after he left his local area. While the Supervisor’s Statement refers to the AOP tracking the Applicant to Obuasi, described as a faraway city, the Applicant’s counsel clarified at the hearing of this application that Obuasi is a different location from where the Applicant worked but is indeed the local area where he lives. [ 26 ] I agree with the Respondent that the evidence upon which the Applicant relies in this application is not probative of the means or motivation of the AOP to locate the Applicant in the [NAME] and that the absence of an analysis of that evidence in the Decision therefore does not render the Decision unreasonable. [ 27 ] The Applicant further submits that he was not required to establish with certainty that the AOP would locate him in the proposed [NAME]. While I agree with this submission, [NAME]’s analysis does not suggest that it found the [NAME] viable because the Applicant could not establish with certainty that he would be located. Rather, [NAME] found that the Applicant did not establish that the AOP had the requisite means or motivation, which analysis is consistent with the relevant jurisprudence ( [NAME] at para 46). [ 28 ] Having found no error in [NAME]’s analysis under the first prong of the IFA test, I will turn to the second prong. B. Second prong of IFA test [ 29 ] In relation to the second prong of the test, the Applicant recognizes that he faces a high threshold to demonstrate that it would be unreasonable for him to relocate to the proposed IFA. However, he argues that this threshold does not relieve [NAME] of the obligation to meaningfully assess his particular circumstances and explain why relocation would not be objectively unreasonable for him. [ 30 ] The Applicant emphasizes in particular his profile a public figure, the performance of whose duties led to the risk from the AOP, and his concern that he would not be able to live openly in an IFA without triggering that risk. [ 31 ] I agree with the Respondent that [NAME]’s analysis under the second prong of the test provides sufficient justification of its finding to withstand reasonableness review pursuant to the principles identified in [APPELLANT] . [NAME] noted the Applicant’s assertion that he could not live in the [NAME] because the AOP would find him. However, [NAME] explained that that argument had been addressed in its analysis under the first prong of the IFA test. [ 32 ] Beyond that, [NAME] considered the Applicant’s profile, including his age, education and employment history, as well as the size of the [NAME], , and the Applicant’s testimony as to concerns about finding employment, and concluded that he had not met his burden of showing that would be unreasonable for him to locate to the [NAME]. As the Respondent submits, the Applicant has failed to point to any evidence that [NAME] ignored or misconstrued in arriving at its finding, and I find no basis to conclude that [NAME]’s analysis is unreasonable.

VI. Conclusion [ 33 ] As I have found that the Decision is reasonable, this application for judicial review must be dismissed. Neither party proposed any question for certification for appeal, and none is stated.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-12987-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified for appeal. "Richard F. Southcott" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-12987-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 16, 2025

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: SOUTHCOTT J. DATED: June 18, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent