The Federal Court dismissed Anvir Singh’s application for judicial review on October 20, 2026, finding the Refugee Appeal Division’s internal flight alternative assessment of Mumbai was reasonable. The Court found no reviewable error in the RAD’s conclusion that Singh did not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm there.
Case background and RAD decision
In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1279, Justice Julie Blackhawk reviewed a May 16, 2025 decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The RAD had concluded that Singh, an Indian citizen who is Sikh, was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Singh claimed to support the creation of an independent Sikh state of Khalistan. He said he had attended Sikh temples and protests in Punjab, and alleged that police detained and abused him in two incidents in 2019. He arrived in Canada in July 2019 and applied for refugee protection in March 2023.
The Refugee Protection Division denied the claim, finding that Singh had exaggerated the extent of his support for Khalistan and that he could safely and reasonably relocate to Mumbai. On appeal, the RAD also found Mumbai was a viable internal flight alternative, or IFA.
Applicant challenged Mumbai IFA finding
Singh argued that the RAD unreasonably characterized him as a low-level Khalistan supporter and failed to properly consider objective evidence about the treatment of Khalistan supporters in India. He also submitted that the RAD had selectively relied on the National Documentation Package evidence.
The Court applied the reasonableness standard of review. Justice Blackhawk stated that a reviewing court may intervene only where an error is central or significant enough to render the administrative decision unreasonable.
The judgment described the two-part IFA analysis. First, a claimant must establish a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed location. Second, the claimant must show that it would not be reasonable, in their particular circumstances, to seek refuge there. The Court noted that showing an IFA is unreasonable requires actual and concrete evidence of conditions that would jeopardize the claimant’s life or safety while travelling to or temporarily relocating to the proposed safe area.
Court found RAD addressed key evidence
Justice Blackhawk was not persuaded that the RAD had overlooked the country-condition evidence. The Court found that the RAD had considered the National Documentation Package material concerning Sikhs and Khalistan supporters, while recognizing that the evidence contained mixed information about their treatment by Indian authorities.
The RAD had accepted that Singh supported Khalistan and that he had been persecuted by police in Punjab before arriving in Canada. However, it characterized his support as relatively private and low-profile and found no credible and reliable evidence, or reason, to conclude that another Indian police force would seek to find and harm him in Mumbai.
The Court held that the RAD had meaningfully grappled with Singh’s arguments, his evidence and the objective country-condition evidence. It concluded that the RAD’s analysis was complete and detailed, and that its decision was justified, transparent and intelligible.
Judicial review dismissed
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. No question was certified.
The ruling does not alter the general IFA framework. In this case, the Court found that the RAD’s assessment of the evidence and its conclusion that Mumbai was a viable internal flight alternative were reasonable.
Source: Federal Court Decisions