Internal Flight Alternative Upheld in India Claim

The Federal Court dismissed an Indian refugee claimant’s judicial review application on November 2, 2026, finding the Refugee Appeal Division reasonably concluded that an internal flight alternative was available in Bengaluru or Kolkata. The Court found the claimant was effectively asking it to reweigh the evidence considered by the tribunal.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1344, Court file IMM-15812-25.
• Decision date & judge: November 2, 2026, by the Honourable Justice Thorne.
• Issue: The claimant challenged the RAD’s confirmation that he had an internal flight alternative in Bengaluru or Kolkata.
• Outcome: The application for judicial review was dismissed, and no question of general importance was certified.

Refugee claim turned on relocation within India

The applicant, a Sikh citizen of India, alleged he feared persecution because of an interfaith relationship with a Muslim woman. He said his former girlfriend’s father arranged for armed men to attack him and, with the assistance of a corrupt local politician, caused local police to detain and threaten him.

The Refugee Protection Division accepted the applicant’s allegations as true but concluded that he could safely relocate within India. The Refugee Appeal Division confirmed that conclusion, finding that the alleged agents of harm were local actors without demonstrated capacity to locate him or influence authorities in Bengaluru or Kolkata.

The RAD also assessed the applicant’s education, work history and language ability when considering whether it would be unreasonable for him to relocate to either city.

Applicant challenged the RAD’s risk assessment

The applicant argued that the RAD unreasonably found that the alleged agents of harm could not locate him in the proposed cities. He relied in part on his account that police had sought him after he moved to stay with his uncle in another region of India.

He also argued that country-condition evidence showed politically motivated police could operate outside official channels, and that the RAD’s assessment of his ability to relocate was generic rather than responsive to his personal circumstances.

The applicant further submitted that the RAD had failed to separately address risks under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Court found a reasonable chain of analysis

Justice Thorne held that the RAD had not ignored the evidence concerning the applicant’s stay with his uncle. The RAD had explained that the former girlfriend’s father had business connections in that area and that the applicant was staying with a family member, factors that could have made him easier to find there.

The Court found it was open to the RAD to conclude there was no evidence that the alleged agents of harm had comparable influence or connections in Bengaluru or Kolkata. It also found the RAD reasonably noted that there was no evidence of a pending charge, warrant, First Information Report or entry in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System that could enable police to track the applicant through that system.

On the second part of the internal flight alternative analysis, the Court found the RAD had conducted an individualized assessment. The RAD considered available health and mental-health services, the applicant’s ability to practise his religion, and the impact of the attack, while concluding he had not shown that relocation would jeopardize his life or safety.

The Court also held that the RAD’s adoption of the RPD’s analysis addressed both sections 96 and 97. It found no unreasonable failure to provide a separate section 97 analysis because a viable internal flight alternative negates a refugee protection claim under either provision.

Judicial review did not permit a new weighing of evidence

The Court applied the reasonableness standard of review. It stated that it could intervene only if the RAD’s decision lacked justification, transparency or intelligibility.

Justice Thorne concluded that the applicant’s submissions largely reflected disagreement with the RAD’s weighing of the evidence. Judicial review is not an opportunity for the Court to reconsider that evidence and reach a more favourable result.

The decision leaves the RAD’s finding in place. The dismissal of judicial review does not grant or refuse a new refugee protection determination; it confirms that the Court found no reviewable unreasonableness in the decision under review.

Source: Federal Court Decisions