CHAPTER 8 - INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. 8.1. GENERALLY
  2. 8.2. TWO-PRONGED TEST
  3. 8.3. NOTICE - BURDEN OF PROOF
  4. 8.4. STANDARD OF REVIEW
  5. 8.5. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE TWO-PRONGED TEST
    1. 8.5.1. Fear of Persecution
    2. 8.5.2. Reasonable in All the Circumstances
  6. TABLE OF CASES

8. INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

8.1. GENERALLY

The question of whether an IFA exists is an integral part of the Convention refugee definition.Note 1 It arises when a claimant who otherwise meets all the elements of the Convention refugee definition in his or her home area of the country never theless is not a Convention refugee because the person has an IFA elsewhere in that country. The key concepts concerning IFA come from two cases: RasaratnamNote 2 and Thirunavukkarasu.Note 3 From these cases it is clear that the test to be applied in determining whether there is an IFA is two-pronged.

  1. "… the Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists."Note 4
  2. Moreover, conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him to seek refuge there.Note 5

Both prongs must be satisfied for a finding that the claimant has an IFA.

The Court of Appeal in Kanagaratnam,Note 6 was of the view that the determination of whether a claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her home area of the country is not a prerequisite to the consideration of an IFA.

The concept of an IFA does not require that the safe haven be in another city or province of the state of origin so long as it is truly an area in which the claimant can seek refuge from the experienced persecution.Note 7

The relationship between IFA, change of circumstances and the applicability of "compelling reasons" was considered by the Trial Division,Note 8 and the Court concluded that where an IFA applies to a claimant, that person is not and never could have been a Convention refugee. Accordingly, he or she could not cease to be a Convention refugee on the basis of a change of circumstances.

8.2. TWO-PRONGED TEST

The second prong of the IFA test may be stated as follows: would it be unduly harsh to expect the claimant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking refugee status abroad?Note 9 The test is an objective one: is it objectively reasonable to expect the claimant to seek safety in a different part of the country? ThirunavukkarasuNote 10 sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA unreasonable.Note 11

An IFA cannot be speculative or theoretical only; it must be a realistic, attainable option. The claimant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger or to undergo undue hardship in travelling there or staying there.Note 12 However, it is not enough for the claimant to say that he or she does not like the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there, or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.Note 13

A distinction must be maintained between the reasonableness of an IFA and humanitarian and compassionate considerations. The fact that a claimant might be better off in Canada, physically, economically and emotionally than in a safe place in his own country is not a factor to consider in assessing the reasonableness of the IFA.Note 14

8.3. NOTICE - BURDEN OF PROOF

Two other general principles that emerge from Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu concern notice and burden of proof. With respect to notice, the issue of IFA must be raised by the panel or the Minister (before or during the hearing). The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) does not automatically put claimants on notice that IFA is an issue in the claim. The principles regarding fair notice expressed in Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu are still relevant under IRPA.Note 15 The notice must be clear and sufficient.Note 16

It is a breach of natural justice to tell the claimant that IFA is not an issue and then, later, make a contrary finding on that issueNote 17. Extensive questioning during the hearing on the subject of IFA can be sufficient notice.Note 18 With respect to burden of proof, once the issue is raised, the onus is on the claimant to show that he or she does not have an IFA.

Even though the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, the Board cannot base a finding that there is an IFA, in the absence of sufficient evidence, solely on the basis that the claimant has not fulfilled the onus of proof.Note 19 A finding of IFA must be based on a distinct evaluation of a region for that purpose taking into account the claimant's identity. It cannot be inferred from earlier findings of fact unconnected to the issue of an IFA.Note 20

There is some debate as to whether a specific location or region must be identified as the potential IFA,Note 21 but a number of cases seem to indicate that it is not an error not to specify specific locations.Note 22

8.4. STANDARD OF REVIEW

IFA is a question of fact and therefore, the standard of review to be applied by the Federal Court to internal flight alternative findings by the RPD is reasonableness.Note 23

8.5. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE TWO-PRONGED TEST

The abundance of case law on the topic of IFA basically concerns the interpretation and application of the two-pronged test. Some factors are relevant to both prongs of the test, some are relevant to one or the other prong.

8.5.1. Fear of Persecution

On the issue of whether there is a serious possibility of persecution in the potential IFA, the considerations are basically the same as when making this determination with respect to the claimant's home area of the country. However, there are some specific points concerning this issue and IFA that are noteworthy:

  1. In determining whether there is an objective basis for fearing persecution in the IFA, the Refugee Division must consider the personal circumstances of the claimant, and not just general evidence concerning other persons who live there.Note 24
  2. The Refugee Division must consider the circumstances of those persons in the IFA who are situated similarly to the claimant.Note 25
  3. In assessing the particular circumstances of the claimant, the Refugee Division may consider the condition of family members who have sought refuge in the IFA.Note 26
  4. The nature and the agents of the persecution feared ought to suggest that the persecution would be confined to particular areas of the country.Note 27 The fact, however, that the agents of persecution are the central authority in the country does not prevent a finding that there is an IFA.Note 28
  5. If an individual had to remain in hiding to avoid problems, this would not be evidence of an IFA.Note 29 Similarly, if a person has to hide their sexual orientation in order to be safe, the IFA is not available.Note 30
  6. According to the Trial Division, the presence of close relatives in the putative IFA, and the duration of previous residence and past employment there, may have a bearing on "whether or not it is 'objectively reasonable' for the claimant to live in … [the IFA] without fear of persecution", rather than being matters merely of personal comfort or convenience.Note 31
  7. There is some lack of clarity concerning how the concept of cumulative harassment or cumulative grounds applies in the consideration of IFA.Note 32 In Karthikesu, the Court appears to find that experiences in the non-IFA area do not form part of a cumulative assessment when considering the IFA area. In Balasubramaniam, however, the Court suggests that depending on the CRDD's other findings "… it [the CRDD] may or may not have to consider the question of the cumulative effect of all the incidents that occurred to the applicant at the hands of the Sri Lankan armed forces to determine whether these, together with the likelihood of continuing harassment at the hands of the authorities, might constitute persecution on a cumulative basis."(emphasis added). This statement seems to suggest that experiences in the non-IFA area can form part of a cumulative assessment when considering the IFA area.
  8. Large urban areas cannot be assumed to be an IFA by virtue of their population size alone.Note 33
  9. The fact that a putative location was "far away", would not, without more, constitute a viable IFA.Note 34
  10. A determination regarding nexus is equally important in the assessment of whether an IFA exists in a given case.Note 35

8.5.2. Reasonable in All the Circumstances

Regarding the issue of "reasonable in all the circumstances", the Court of Appeal has stated that the circumstances must be relevant to the IFA question. They cannot be catalogued in the abstract. They will vary from case to case.Note 36 However, whether certain factors are relevant to the determination of whether a given IFA would be "objectively reasonable" is an issue that transcends the particular facts of a given case.Note 37 Therefore, the appropriate standard of review is "correctness" in cases where the issue is what factors the CRDD considers in assessing an IFA.Note 38 The Federal Court has provided the following general guidance:

  1. The test is a flexible one that takes into account the particular situation of the claimant and the particular country involved.Note 39 The evidence, before the Refugee Division, of circumstances in the IFA must be more than general information and must be relevant to the claimant's specific circumstances.Note 40
  2. There must be some discussion of the regional conditions which would make an IFA reasonable.Note 41
  3. The presence or absence of family in the IFA is a factor in assessing reasonableness,Note 42 especially in the case of minor claimants.Note 43 However, the absence of relatives in an IFA would have to jeopardize the safety of a claimant before that factor would make an IFA unreasonable.Note 44
  4. A destroyed infrastructure and economy in the IFA, and the stability or instability of the government that is in place there, are relevant factors.Note 45 Instability alone is not the test of reasonableness,Note 46 nor is a disintegrating infrastructure.Note 47
  5. An IFA is not reasonable if it requires the perpetuation of human rights abuses.Note 48
  6. Hardship in accessing the IFA must be assessed.Note 49
  7. There is no onus on a claimant to personally test the viability of an IFA before seeking protection in Canada.Note 50
  8. In gender-based claims, the Board must have regard to section C4 of the Gender Guidelines.Note 51

Dealing with specific cases, the Court has indicated it is appropriate for the RPD to consider, in various ways, factors such as: the claimant's age,Note 52 appearance (including gender and race), religion, political profile,Note 53 the employment situation,Note 54 the type of residence available, the ability to speak the language, the ability to raise a family,Note 55 the crime rate, the physical and financial barriers,Note 56 the composition of the "family" unit (it appears this may also go to fear of persecution),Note 57 previous residence in the IFA area,Note 58 familiarity with the IFA area, the capacity of the claimant to re-establish him or herself,Note 59 whether there is a similar group located in the IFA area, race or ethnicity of the claimant (this may also go to fear of persecution),Note 60 having a registration card, being registered with the police,Note 61 ability to move from one residence to another (e.g. legal restrictions),Note 62 and the health and financial situation of the claimant.Note 63

Other factors identified by the Court as being relevant to a determination of this issue include the claimant's business and social contacts in the potential IFA area;Note 64 and medical and psychological reports that provide objective evidence that it would be "unduly harsh" to expect a claimant to move to a potential IFA area.Note 65

TABLE OF CASES

  1. Abubakar, Fahmey Abdalla Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-572-92), Wetston, September 9, 1993
  2. Ahmed, Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-89-92), Marceau, Desjardins, Décary, July 14, 1993. Reported: Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 156 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.)
  3. Ahmed, Ishtiaq v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2931-99), Hansen, March 29, 2000
  4. Ahmed, Mohammed Ali v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2894-06), Pinard, December 20, 2006
  5. Ali, Chaudhary Liaqat v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1461-92), Noël, January 20, 1994
  6. Alvapillai, Ramasethu v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4226-97), Rothstein, August 14, 1998
  7. Aramburo, Juan Carlos v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6782-93), Cullen, December 7, 1994
  8. Arunachalam, Sinnathamby v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-157-96), MacKay, August 14, 1996
  9. Aumbhagavan, Sivasubramaniam v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3619-93), Cullen, June 6, 1994
  10. Ay, Hasan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4149-09), Boivin, June 21, 2010; 2010 FC 671
  11. Ayad, Larbi v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2820-95), Tremblay-Lamer, April 26, 1996
  12. Badesha, Jagir Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1544-92), Wetston, January 19, 1994. Reported: Badesha v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 190 (F.C.T.D.)
  13. Balasubramaniam, Veergathy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1902-93), McKeown, October 4, 1994
  14. Brar, Jagjit Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-213-98), Rothstein, January 11, 1999
  15. Cadena Ramirez, Francisco José v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5911-09), Rennie, December 20, 2010; 2010 FC 1276
  16. Calderon, Sonia Blancas v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5367-08), Near, March 8, 2010; 2010 FC 263
  17. Capitansabapathy, Saraswathy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-973-94), Wetston, December 2, 1994
  18. Cartagena, Wilber Orlando v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-961-06), Mosley, March 4, 2008; 2008 FC 289
  19. Cepeda-Guitierrez, Carlos Arturo v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-596-98), Evans, October 6, 1998
  20. Chauhdry, Mukhtar Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3951-97), Wetston, August 17, 1998
  21. Chkiaou, Dimitri v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no., IMM-266-94), Cullen, March 7, 1995
  22. Chowdhury, Swapan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5618-06), de Montigny, January 8, 2008; 2008 FC 18
  23. Dhaliwal, Jasbir Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-364), MacKay, August 9, 1993
  24. Dhillon, Harbhagwant Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3256-93), Rouleau, March 17, 1994
  25. Dhillon, Inderjit Kaur v M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2652-94), McKeown, February 1, 1995
  26. Dirshe, Safi Mohamud v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2124-96), Cullen, July 2, 1997
  27. Dubravac, Petar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-839-94), Rothstein, February 1, 1995. Reported: Dubravac v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 55 (F.C.T.D.)
  28. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9. Hernandez Gonzalez, Karla Del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no.IMM-2265-08), Hughes, November 13, 2008; 2008 FC 1259
  29. Elmi, Mahamud Hussein v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-580-98), McKeown, March 12, 1999
  30. Estrado Lugo, Regina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1166-09), O'Keefe, February 18, 2010; 2010 FC 170
  31. Farrah, Sahra Said v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-694-92), Reed, October 5, 1993
  32. Fernando, Joseph Stanley v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6986), McKeown, May 19, 1993
  33. Flores Argote, Maria de Lourdes v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3029-08), Zinn, February 9, 2009; 2009 FC 128
  34. Fosu, Frank Atta v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-935-08), Zinn, October 8, 2008; 2008 FC 1135
  35. Gabriel, Joseph Gnanpragasam v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3776-93), Wetston, May 25, 1994
  36. Ganeshan, Annam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1440-96), MacKay, February 21, 1997
  37. Geelle, Abdirisak Duale v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-918-92), Rouleau, July 30, 1993. Reported: Geelle v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 21 Imm. L.R. (2d) 36 (F.C.T.D.)
  38. Gomez, Mario Alonso Martinez v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5501-97), Teitelbaum, December 11, 1998
  39. Gosal, Pardeep Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2316-97), Reed, March 11, 1998
  40. Guraya, Balihar Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4058-93), Pinard, July 8, 1994
  41. Hashmat, Suhil v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2331-96), Teitelbaum, May 9, 1997
  42. Hasnain, Khalid v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-962-92), McKeown, December 14, 1995
  43. Hassan, Liban v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3634-98), Campbell, April 14, 1999
  44. Hazime, Bassam Mohamed v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-7223-93), McKeown, December 20, 1994
  45. Hernandez Gonzales, Karla del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2265-08), Hughes, November 13, 2008; 2008 FC1259
  46. Huntley: M.C.I. v. Huntley, Brandon Carl (F.C., no. IMM-4423-09), Russell, November 24, 2010; 2010 FC 1175
  47. I.M.P.P. v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4049-09), Mosley, March 9, 2010; 2010 FC 259
  48. Ibrahim, Ahmed Mohamed v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-884-92), Jerome, March 8, 1994
  49. Isa, Sharmarka Ahmed v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1760-94), Reed, February 16, 1995. Reported: Isa v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1995), 28 Imm. L.R. (2d) 68 (F.C.T.D.)
  50. Javed, Mohammad v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-446-94), Reed, July 20, 1994
  51. Jeyachandran, Senthan v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-799-94), McKeown, March 30, 1995
  52. Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-711-07), Mosley, December 21, 2007; 2007 FC 1354
  53. Kachine, Serguei v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1144-94), Noël, February 7, 1995
  54. Kahlon, Hari Singh v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-532-93), Gibson, August 5, 1993. Reported: Kahlon v. Canada (Solicitor General), (1993), 24 Imm. L.R. (2d) 219 (F.C.T.D.)
  55. Kaillyapillai, Srivasan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1263-96), Richard, February 27, 1997
  56. Kaler, Minder Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-794-93), Cullen, February 3, 1994
  57. Kanagaratnam, Parameswary v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-356-94), Strayer, Linden, McDonald, January 17, 1996. Reported: Kanagaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1996), 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 180 (F.C.A.)
  58. Kandiah, Nagamma v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3100-93), McKeown, September 1, 1994
  59. Karthikesu, Cumariah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2998-93), Strayer, May 26, 1994
  60. Kayumba, Bijou Kamwanga v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1920-09), Beaudry, February 10, 2010; 2010 FC 138
  61. Keerthaponrajah, Alfred v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-7282), Noël, June 23, 1993
  62. Khan, Naqui Mohd v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4127-01), Rothstein, July 26, 2002
  63. Krishnakumar, Nalini v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1527-96), Joyal, July 7, 1997
  64. Krishnapillai, Arumugam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5724-93), Reed, December 2, 1994
  65. Kulanthavelu, Gnanasegaram v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-57-93), Gibson, December 3, 1993
  66. Lopez Martinez, Heydi Vanessa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5081-09), Pinard, May 25, 2010; 2010 FC 550
  67. Malik, Mohammed Azim v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-58-93), McKeown, June 6, 1994
  68. Manoharan, Vanajah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1156-92), Rouleau, December 6, 1993
  69. Megag, Sahra Abdilahi v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-822-92), Rothstein, December 10, 1993
  70. Mimica, Milanka v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3014-95), Rothstein, June 19, 1996
  71. Moreb, Sliman v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-287-05), von Finckenstein, July 5, 2005; 2005 FC 945
  72. Moya, Jaime Olvera v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5436-01), Beaudry, November 6, 2002
  73. Nadarajah, Sivasothy Nathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4215-93), Simpson, July 26, 1994
  74. Nadesalingam, Mahalingam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5711-93), Muldoon, December 13, 1994
  75. Naguleswaran, Pathmasilosini (Naguleswaran) v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1116-94), Muldoon, April 19, 1995
  76. Nithiananathan, Krishnapillai v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-36-97), Muldoon, October 21, 1997
  77. Osman, Yassin Yussuf v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1667-96), Campbell, April 9, 1997
  78. Pathmakanthan, Indradevi v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2367-93), Denault, November 2, 1993. Reported: Pathmakanthan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 76 (F.C.T.D.)
  79. Pathmanathan, Ponnampalam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-233-94), McGillis, November 17, 1994
  80. Periyathamby, Thangamma v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6846-93), Rouleau, January 6, 1995. Reported: Periyathamby v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 179 (F.C.T.D)
  81. Playasova, Liudmila Fedor v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3931-02), Martineau, July 18, 2003; 2003 FC 901
  82. Premanathan, Gopalasamy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4423-96), Simpson, August 29, 1997
  83. Rabbani, Sayed Moheyudee v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-236-96), Noël, January 16, 1997
  84. Ramachanthran, Thenmoli v. M.C.I. (F.C., no., IMM-3606-02), Russell, May 18, 2003; 2003 FC 673
  85. Randhawa, Faheem Anwar v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5621-93), Rouleau, August 12, 1994
  86. Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 4 F.C. 269 (T.D.)
  87. Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.)
  88. Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.)
  89. Rasathurai, Sinnadurai v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4556-93, Denault, November 25, 1994
  90. Ratnam, Selvanayagam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1881-94), Richard, March 31, 1995
  91. Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996
  92. Rumb, Serge v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1481-98), Reed, February 12, 1999
  93. Sabaratnam, Thavakaran v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-536-90), Mahoney, Stone, Robertson, October 2, 1992
  94. Sahota, Amrik Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3313-93), McKeown, June 3, 1994
  95. Saini, Makhan Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-750-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, March 22, 1993. Reported: Saini v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 151 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.)
  96. Saini, Makhan Singh v. M.E.I. (S.C.C., no. 23619), Lamer, McLachlin, Major, August 12, 1993. Reported: Saini v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 158 N.R. 300 (S.C.C.)
  97. Salibian v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 250 (C.A.)
  98. Sangha, Karamjit Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1555-98), Reed, October 28, 1998
  99. Sanno, Aminata v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2124-95), Tremblay-Lamer, April 25, 1996
  100. Selvakumaran, Sivachelam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5103-01), Mckeown, May 31, 2002
  101. Sharbdeen: M.E.I. v. Sharbdeen, Mohammed Faroudeen (F.C.A., no. A-488-93), Mahoney, MacGuigan, Linden, March 21, 1994. Reported: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Sharbdeen (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.A.)
  102. Siddiq, Dawood v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1684-03), Harrington, March 31, 2004; 2004 FC 490
  103. Sidhu, Jadgish Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6540), Muldoon, May 31, 1993
  104. Singh, Gurmeet v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-75-95), Richard, July 4, 1995. Reported: Singh, (Gurmeet) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 30 Imm. L.R. (2d) 226 (F.C.T.D.)
  105. Singh, Sucha v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-91), Dubé, June 23, 1993
  106. Singh, Swarn v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1409-92), Rothstein, May 4, 1994
  107. Sivalingham, Tharini v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3440-93), MacKay, October 20, 1994
  108. Sokol, Sterbyci v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1767-09), O'Keefe, December 8, 2009; 2009 FC 1257
  109. Soltan, Alexander v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6135-00), Blais, January 28, 2002
  110. Somasundaram, Pathmananathan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-432-95), MacKay, September 7, 1995
  111. Somasundaram, Sivapackieswary v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6030-93), Cullen, September 21, 1994
  112. Sundralingam, Chandrakala v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6218-93), Cullen, September 20, 1994
  113. Suthanthirarajah, Ratnam v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6902), Noël, June 22, 1993. Reported: Suthanthirarajah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 269 (F.C.T.D.)
  114. Syvyryn, Ganna v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1569-09), Snider, October 13, 2009; 2009 FC 1027
  115. Taher, Javaid v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-265-98), Rothstein, November 25, 1998
  116. Tawfik, Taha Mohammed v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-311), MacKay, August 23, 1993. Reported: Tawfik v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 148 (F.C.T.D.)
  117. Thanabalasingam, Jeyanthini v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-206-94), Rothstein, October 17, 1994
  118. Thevarajah, Anton Felix v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-695-04), Mosley, November 24, 2004; 2004 FC 1654
  119. Thevasagayam, Ebenezer Thevaraj v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-252-97), Tremblay-Lamer, October 23, 1997
  120. Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.)
  121. Trujillo Sanchez, Luis Miguel v. M.C.I. (F.C.A, no. A-310-06), Richard, Sharlow, Malone, March 8, 2007; 2007 FCA 99
  122. Uppal, Jatinder Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. A-17-93), Wetston, January 19, 1994
  123. Vidal, Daniel Fernando v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-644-92), Gibson, May 15, 1997
  124. Vyramuthu, Sanmugarajah v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6277-93), Rouleau, January 26, 1995
  125. Yoganathan, Kandasamy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3588-97), Gibson, April 20, 1998
  126. Zamora Huerta, Erika Angelina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1985-07), Blanchard, May 8, 2008; 2008 FC 586
  127. Zetino, Rudys Francisco Mendoza v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6173-93), Cullen, October 13, 1994. Reported: Zetino v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 25 Imm. L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.T.D.)

Notes

Note 1

Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.), at 710.

Return to note 1 referrer

Note 2

Ibid.

Return to note 2 referrer

Note 3

Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.).

Return to note 3 referrer

Note 4

Rasaratnam, supra, footnote 1 at 710. In Chowdhury, Swapan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5618-06), de Montigny, January 8, 2008; 2008 FC 18, the Court noted that it is an error to require a claimant to show that persecution in the IFA "would" happen. See also Sokol, Sterbyci v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1767-09), O'Keefe, December 8, 2009; 2009 FC 1257.

Return to note 4 referrer

Note 5

Ibid., at 709 and 711.

Return to note 5 referrer

Note 6

Kanagaratnam, Parameswary v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-356-94), Strayer, Linden, McDonald, January 17, 1996. Reported: Kanagaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1996), 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 180 (F.C.A.); Arunachalam, Sinnathamby v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-157-96), MacKay, August 14, 1996. A finding of an IFA implicitly concedes a well-founded fear of persecution elsewhere in the country.

Return to note 6 referrer

Note 7

Jilani, Zia Uddin Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-711-07), Mosley, December 21, 2007; 2007 FC 1354.

Return to note 7 referrer

Note 8

Singh, Gurmeet v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-75-95), Richard, July 4, 1995. Reported: Singh, (Gurmeet) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 30 Imm. L.R. (2d) 226 (F.C.T.D.), at 4. See also, Sangha, Karamjit Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1555-98), Reed, October 28, 1998.

Return to note 8 referrer

Note 9

Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3, at 596-599.

Return to note 9 referrer

Note 10

Ibid.

Return to note 10 referrer

Note 11

Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.).

Return to note 11 referrer

Note 12

Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3, at 596-599. In applying the principle set out in Thirunavukkarasu that the IFA must be an area that is realistically attainable, the Court in Playasova, Liudmila Fedor v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3931-02), Martineau, July 18, 2003; 2003 FC 901 stated that the failure of the RPD to consider that the claimant could only relocate to the IFA if she had the means to pay bribes to obtain a propiska was an error. In Dubravac, Petar v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-839-94), Rothstein, February 1, 1995. Reported: Dubravac v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 55 (F.C.T.D.), where the claimant's hometown had been surrounded by opposing Serbian forces, the Court commented that they "would not be required to go from their hometown to the safe zone of Croatia, but … from wherever they were relanded upon being sent back."

Return to note 12 referrer

Note 13

Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3, at 596-599.

Return to note 13 referrer

Note 14

Ranganathan, supra, footnote 11, at 8.

Return to note 14 referrer

Note 15

Thevarajah, Anton Felix v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-695-04), Mosley, November 24, 2004; 2004 FC 1654.

Return to note 15 referrer

Note 16

Ay, Hasan v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4149-09), Boivin, June 21, 2010; 2010 FC 671.

Return to note 16 referrer

Note 17

Moya, Jaime Olvera v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5436-01), Beaudry, November 6, 2002.

Return to note 17 referrer

Note 18

Hasnain, Khalid v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-962-92), McKeown, December 14, 1995.

Return to note 18 referrer

Note 19

Chauhdry, Mukhtar Ahmed v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3951-97), Wetston, August 17, 1998.

Return to note 19 referrer

Note 20

Selvakumaran, Sivachelam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5103-01), Mckeown, May 31, 2002.

Return to note 20 referrer

Note 21

In Rabbani, Sayed Moheyudee v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-236-96), Noël, January 16, 1997, the Court said that the CRDD must identify a specific geographic location; but in Singh, Ranjit v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-605-92), Reed, July 23, 1996, the Court rejected the claimant's argument that the CRDD should identify a place within the country as an IFA, especially in a country as large as India. In Vidal, Daniel Fernando v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-644-92), Gibson, May 15, 1997 no notice was given at outset of hearing, but counsel presented evidence on IFA. The Court found no prejudice was suffered by the claimant as a result of the failure to give notice. Similarly, in Gosal, Pardeep Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2316-97), Reed, March 11, 1998, the Court found that one need not identify a specific location within the country for an IFA analysis. Rabbani was distinguished on its facts as in that case the country concerned was Afghanistan and control over areas considered safe tended to shift. However, in Ahmed, Ishtiaq v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2931-99), Hansen, March 29, 2000, the court found the CRDD had erred in considering Islamabad and Karachi as possible IFAs when the claimant only had notice that Lahore was being considered as a possible IFA. In Moreb, Sliman v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-287-05), von Finckenstein, July 5, 2005; 2005 FC 945, the Court found the RPD to have erred when it referred to Jerusalem and Nazareth as the only possible IFA locations and then went on to consider Tel-Aviv-Yafo as an IFA. The Court offered that the panel could have raised the issue of IFA generally without referring to any specific location.

Return to note 21 referrer

Note 22

For example, in Lopez Martinez, Heydi Vanessa v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5081-09), Pinard, May 25, 2010; 2010 FC 550, the Court, at paragraph 23, noted: "…I do not propose that the Board is under an obligation to provide justification for selecting the city it did initially…" (Emphasis added). But note that the Board did have to explain why the proposed IFA was safe given that the agent of harm was active there.

Return to note 22 referrer

Note 23

Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9. Hernandez Gonzalez, Karla Del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no.IMM-2265-08), Hughes, November 13, 2008; 2008 FC 1259. However, note the discussion below in section 8.5.2.

Return to note 23 referrer

Note 24

See for example: Abubakar, Fahmey Abdalla Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-572-92), Wetston, September 9, 1993, at 3-5; Pathmakanthan, Indradevi v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2367-93), Denault, November 2, 1993. Reported: Pathmakanthan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 76 (F.C.T.D.), at 79-80; Kaler, Minder Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-794-93), Cullen, February 3, 1994, at 9; Dhillon, Harbhagwant Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3256-93), Rouleau, March 17, 1994, at 3; Jeyachandran, Senthan v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-799-94), McKeown, March 30, 1995; Ratnam, Selvanayagam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1881-94), Richard, March 31, 1995.

Return to note 24 referrer

Note 25

Kahlon, Hari Singh v. S.G.C (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-532-93), Gibson, August 5, 1993. Reported: Kahlon v. Canada (Solicitor General), (1993), 24 Imm. L.R. (2d) 219 (F.C.T.D.), at 222-224; Manoharan, Vanajah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1156-92), Rouleau, December 6, 1993, at 7-8; Naguleswaran, Pathmasilosini (Naguleswaran) v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1116-94), Muldoon, April 19, 1995, at 6 (however, caution is suggested concerning interpretation of the phrase, "…solid proof of personal persecution (either individually or collectively)…" given case law indicating there is no need for past persecution, individually or collectively, e.g. see Salibian v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 250 (C.A.)).

Return to note 25 referrer

Note 26

See for example Ali, Chaudhary Liaqat v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1461-92), Noël, January 20, 1994, at 5-6.

Return to note 26 referrer

Note 27

Ahmed, Ali v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-89-92), Marceau, Desjardins, Décary, July 14, 1993. Reported: Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 156 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.), at 223-224. See also for example: M.E.I. v. Sharbdeen, Mohammed Faroudeen (F.C.A., no. A-488-93), Mahoney, MacGuigan, Linden, March 21, 1994. Reported: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Sharbdeen (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.A.) (although this issue appears to be considered under reasonableness); Nadarajah, Sivasothy Nathan v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4215-93), Simpson, July 26, 1994; Randhawa, Faheem Anwar v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5621-93), Rouleau, August 12, 1994; Zetino, Rudys Francisco Mendoza v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6173-93), Cullen, October 13, 1994. Reported: Zetino v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 25 Imm. L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.T.D.) (although this issue may be considered under reasonableness); See also Khan, Naqui Mohd v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4127-01), Rothstein, July 26, 2002, where the court found that the localized nature of the claimants activities and the region's legal system supported the panel's finding of an IFA outside of that region. In Siddiq, Dawood v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1684-03), Harrington, March 31, 2004; 2004 FC 490, the Court found that a failure to address the question of persecution by national authorities when considering an internal flight alternative is a reviewable error.

Return to note 27 referrer

Note 28

Saini, Makhan Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-750-91), Mahoney, Stone, Linden, March 22, 1993. Reported: Saini v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 151 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. denied: Saini v. M.E.I. (S.C.C., no. 23619), Lamer, McLachlin, Major), August 12, 1993. Reported: Saini v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 158 N.R. 300 (S.C.C.). See also for example: Sidhu, Jadgish Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6540), Muldoon, May 31, 1993; Badesha, Jagir Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1544-92), Wetston, January 19, 1994. Reported: Badesha v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 190 (F.C.T.D.); Uppal, Jatinder Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. A-17-93), Wetston, January 19, 1994, affirmed: Uppal, Jatinder Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-42-94), Isaac, Hugessen, Décary, November 1, 1994; Kaler, supra, footnote 24, at 9; Karthikesu, Cumariah v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2998-93), Strayer, May 26, 1994; Guraya, Balihar Singh v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4058-93), Pinard, July 8, 1994; Balasubramaniam, Veergathy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1902-93), McKeown, October 4, 1994; Dhillon, Inderjit Kaur v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2652-94), McKeown, February 1, 1995; Zamora Huerta, Erika Angelina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1985-07), Blanchard, May 8, 2008; 2008 FC 586; and Fosu, Frank Atta v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-935-08), Zinn, October 8, 2008; 2008 FC 1135.

Saini has been distinguished in Singh, Sucha v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-91), Dubé, June 23, 1993, where the Court held that the CRDD's conclusion that an IFA existed because there was not a nation-wide campaign against the claimant's ethnic group did not satisfy the criteria for finding an IFA as established in Rasaratnam, supra, footnote 1.

Return to note 28 referrer

Note 29

See for example: Sabaratnam, Thavakaran v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-536-90), Mahoney, Stone, Robertson, October 2, 1992; Fernando, Joseph Stanley v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6986), McKeown, May 19, 1993, at 1; Pathmakanthan, supra, footnote 24, at 4; Sundralingam, Chandrakala v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6218-93), Cullen, September 20, 1994, at 6-7; Kachine, Serguei v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1144-94), Noël, February 7, 1995; and Zamora Huerta, Erika Angelina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1985-07), Blanchard, May 8, 2008; 2008 FC 586.

Return to note 29 referrer

Note 30

Fosu, supra, footnote 28. Also, it is not reasonable for the Board to suggest that the claimant should avoid contact with family member in the IFA to avoid the risk of being located: I.M.P.P. v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4049-09), Mosley, March 9, 2010; 2010 FC 259.

Return to note 30 referrer

Note 31

Kulanthavelu, Gnanasegaram v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-57-93), Gibson, December 3, 1993, at 5-6.

Return to note 31 referrer

Note 32

Karthikesu, supra, footnote 28; Balasubramaniam, supra, footnote 28.

Return to note 32 referrer

Note 33

Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon, January 29, 1996; Sanno, Aminata v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2124-95), Tremblay-Lamer, April 25, 1996.

Return to note 33 referrer

Note 34

Cadena Ramirez, Francisco José v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5911-09), Rennie, December 20, 2010; 2010 FC 1276.

Return to note 34 referrer

Note 35

In Gomez, Mario Alonso Martinez v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5501-97), Teitelbaum, December 11, 1998, the CRDD found that the claimant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Puerto Vallarta because of the illegal actions of the police in brutalizing him, rather than because of his membership in a particular social group as a result of his homosexuality. In allowing the application for judicial review, the Court highlighted the fact that, in determining the availability of an IFA, the tribunal must first link the claimant's claim to one of the enumerated grounds in the definition of a Convention refugee.

Return to note 35 referrer

Note 36

Sharbdeen, supra, footnote 27, at 301-2.

Return to note 36 referrer

Note 37

Trujillo Sanchez, Luis Miguel v. M.C.I. (F.C.A, no. A-310-06), Richard, Sharlow, Malone, March 8, 2007; 2007 FCA 99. It was objectively reasonable for the claimant to cease operating his side business to eliminate future risk of harm. He had the ability to earn a living through other means.

Return to note 37 referrer

Note 38

Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 4 F.C. 269 (T.D.). Reversed on other grounds: Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.). The Court of Appeal did not comment on the standard of review.

Return to note 38 referrer

Note 39

See for example: Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3, at 597; Rasaratnam, supra, footnote 1, at 711; Fernando, supra, footnote 29, at 1; Abubakar, supra, footnote 24, at 4-5; Megag, Sahra Abdilahi v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-822-92), Rothstein, December 10, 1993, at 3; Chkiaou, Dimitri v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no., IMM-266-94), Cullen, March 7, 1995, and Sanno, supra, footnote 33, at 5-8. In Yoganathan, Kandasamy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3588-97), Gibson, April 20, 1998, the Court noted that, in assessing the reasonableness of the IFA, the CRDD must look at the personal circumstances of the claimant and it is insufficient to simply assess whether the claimant fits the "most at risk profile." In Cartagena, Wilber Orlando v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-961-06), Mosley, March 4, 2008; 2008 FC 289, the Court noted that the Board failed to take into account the claimant's vulnerable mind-set; and in Calderon, Sonia Blancas v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5367-08), Near, March 8, 2010; 2010 FC 263, the Court noted that it was unreasonable for the RPD to hold that the claimant had a viable IFA unless "she tries to talk to her children into coming to live with her".

Return to note 39 referrer

Note 40

See for example: Singh, Sucha, supra, footnote 28; Kahlon; supra, footnote 1; Dhaliwal, Jasbir Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-364), MacKay, August 9, 1993; Singh, Swarn v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-1409-92), Rothstein, May 4, 1994. Thevasagayam, Ebenezer Thevaraj v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-252-97), Tremblay-Lamer, October 23, 1997, evidence of past dentention and torture of claimant in relation to a Colombo bombing casts doubt on reasonableness of IFA; Premanathan, Gopalasamy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4423-96), Simpson, August 29, 1997, random roundups and routine reporting requirements do not make IFA unreasonable; Kaillyapillai, Srivasan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1263-96), Richard, February 27, 1997, where Court found no IFA in Colombo for a claimant who had been arrested, beaten and released and told to leave Colombo.

Return to note 40 referrer

Note 41

See for example: Keerthaponrajah, Alfred v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-7282), Noël, June 23, 1993, at 3; Suthanthirarajah, Ratnam v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 92-A-6902), Noël, June 22, 1993. Reported: Suthanthirarajah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 269 (F.C.T.D.); Geelle, Abdirisak Duale v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-918-92), Rouleau, July 30, 1993. Reported: Geelle v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 21 Imm. L.R. (2d) 36 (F.C.T.D.); Ibrahim, Ahmed Mohamed v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-884-92), Jerome, March 8, 1994; Isa, Sharmarka Ahmed v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1760-94), Reed, February 16, 1995. Reported: Isa v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1995), 28 Imm. L.R. (2d) 68 (F.C.T.D.)., at 5-6. Ganeshan, Annam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1440-96), MacKay, February 21, 1997, it was appropriate for panel to consider social services available and existence of NGOs that support women.

Return to note 41 referrer

Note 42

Ranganathan, supra, footnote 11. More than the mere absence of relatives is needed in order to make an IFA unreasonable. In Ramachanthran, Thenmoli v. M.C.I. (F.C., no., IMM-3606-02), Russell, May 18, 2003; 2003 FC 673, the Court found that the failure of the RPD to consider the impact on the claimant of returning to the IFA without her minor son, because the latter had been found to be a Convention refugee, was a reviewable error.

Return to note 42 referrer

Note 43

The absence of family in an IFA is relevant to determining the unreasonableness of requiring a child to live there. Elmi, Mahamud Hussein v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-580-98), McKeown, March 12, 1999. Similarly, in Hassan, Liban v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3634-98), Campbell, April 14, 1999, the Court found that in the case of a minor, an IFA cannot be reasonable unless proper settlement arrangements are made.

Return to note 43 referrer

Note 44

Ibid., at 7.

Return to note 44 referrer

Note 45

Farrah, Sahra Said v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-694-92), Reed, October 5, 1993, at 3. Regarding stability, see also Tawfik, Taha Mohammed v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. 93-A-311), MacKay, August 23, 1993. Reported: Tawfik v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 148 (F.C.T.D.).

Return to note 45 referrer

Note 46

Megag, supra, footnote 39, at 3.

Return to note 46 referrer

Note 47

Rumb, Serge v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1481-98), Reed, February 12, 1999.

Return to note 47 referrer

Note 48

Mimica, Milanka v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3014-95), Rothstein, June 19, 1996, the claimant could only find accommodation in the IFA if current residents were expelled because of their ethnicity.

Return to note 48 referrer

Note 49

In Hashmat, Suhil v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2331-96), Teitelbaum, May 9, 1997, the claimant could only access the IFA in northern Afghanistan by going through the neighbouring state of Uzbekistan. The Court found it unreasonable for the panel to conclude, without any evidence, that the claimant would be allowed to cross the border. The Court also noted that the Immigration Act would not allow removal to a country that is not the claimant's country of birth, nationality or former residence. See also Dirshe, Safi Mohamud v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2124-96), Cullen, July 2, 1997, where the Court noted that a real possibility of rape while trying to get to the IFA makes it an unreasonable option. In fact, in Hashmat, supra, footnote 49 the Court found there to be undue hardship in reaching the IFA because the claimant's wife and child, who were not claimants, would have to travel with him to reach the IFA and there was evidence of widespread rape of women and children making that journey.

Return to note 49 referrer

Note 50

Alvapillai, Ramasethu v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4226-97), Rothstein, August 14, 1998. In Estrado Lugo, Regina v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1166-09), O'Keefe, February 18, 2010; 2010 FC 170, the Court noted that there was no obligation on the claimants to have already sought state protection in the proposed IFA location.

Return to note 50 referrer

Note 51

Syvyryn, Ganna v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1569-09), Snider, October 13, 2009; 2009 FC 1027; and Kayumba, Bijou Kamwanga v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1920-09), Beaudry, February 10, 2010; 2010 FC 138.

Return to note 51 referrer

Note 52

Gabriel, Joseph Gnanpragasam v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3776-93), Wetston, May 25, 1994; Krishnapillai, Arumugam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5724-93), Reed, December 2, 1994. In Sahota, Amrik Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3313-93), McKeown, June 3, 1994, the young age of the claimant was held to be a factor with respect to which the Convention on the Rights of the Child ought to be considered. See also Osman, Yassin Yussuf v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1667-96), Campbell, April 9, 1997, where the young age (17) of the claimant should have been considered in assessing the reasonableness of the IFA where he had no close family. In Nithiananathan, Krishnapillai v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-36-97), Muldoon, October 21, 1997, the Court noted that repeated bribery demands to get out of detention may make an IFA unduly harsh for an elderly claimant living alone. In M.C.I. v. Huntley, Brandon Carl (F.C., no. IMM-4423-09), Russell, November 24, 2010; 2010 FC 1175, the availability of a white enclave where white South Africans congregate and where the claimant would not be conspicuous needed to be addressed.

Return to note 52 referrer

Note 53

Aramburo, Juan Carlos v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6782-93), Cullen, December 7, 1994.

Return to note 53 referrer

Note 54

Soltan, Alexander v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6135-00), Blais, January 28, 2002, a claimant's concern about the possibility of finding work in the region of the IFA is not a valid objection. See also Aumbhagavan, Sivasubramaniam v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3619-93), Cullen, June 6, 1994; Kandiah, Nagamma v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3100-93), McKeown, September 1, 1994; Thanabalasingam, Jeyanthini v. S.S.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-206-94), Rothstein, October 17, 1994.

Return to note 54 referrer

Note 55

Javed, Mohammad v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-446-94), Reed, July 20, 1994; Pathmanathan, Ponnampalam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-233-94), McGillis, November 17, 1994.

Return to note 55 referrer

Note 56

Malik, Mohammed Azim v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-58-93), McKeown, June 6, 1994.

Return to note 56 referrer

Note 57

Vyramuthu, Sanmugarajah v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6277-93), Rouleau, January 26, 1995, one of the family members was found not to have an IFA; Nadesalingam, Mahalingam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5711-93), Muldoon, December 13, 1994, a family with young children is more vulnerable in seeking an IFA.

Return to note 57 referrer

Note 58

Rasathurai, Sinnadurai v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4556-93, Denault, November 25, 1994; Krishnapillai, Arumugam v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5724-93, Reed, December 2, 1994; Hazime, Bassam Mohamed v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-7223-93), McKeown, December 20, 1994. Krishnakumar, Nalini v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1527-96), Joyal, July 7, 1997, a young mother with two children and a history of brief detentions and releases was held to have an IFA in Colombo.

Return to note 58 referrer

Note 59

Sivalingham, Tharini v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3440-93), MacKay, October 20, 1994; Ayad, Larbi v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2820-95), Tremblay-Lamer, April 26, 1996.

Return to note 59 referrer

Note 60

Hasnain, supra, footnote 18; Somasundaram, Sivapackieswary v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6030-93), Cullen, September 21, 1994, the Court appears to consider under reasonableness such factors as extortion, threats, flight of all family members, concern regarding the police (although these issues are traditionally considered as going to persecution).

Return to note 60 referrer

Note 61

Capitansabapathy, Saraswathy v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-973-94), Wetston, December 2, 1994.

Return to note 61 referrer

Note 62

Chkiaou, supra, footnote 39.

Return to note 62 referrer

Note 63

Periyathamby, Thangamma v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6846-93), Rouleau, January 6, 1995. Reported: Periyathamby v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 179 (F.C.T.D).

Return to note 63 referrer

Note 64

See for example: Somasundaram, Pathmananathan v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-432-95), MacKay, September 7, 1995, at 4.

Return to note 64 referrer

Note 65

Singh, Gurmeet, supra, footnote 8, at 5. Taher, Javaid v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-265-98), Rothstein, November 25, 1998, Cepeda-Guitierrez, Carlos Arturo v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-596-98), Evans, October 6, 1998; Brar, Jagjit Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-213-98), Rothstein, January 11, 1999. See also Ahmed, Mohammed Ali v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2894-06), Pinard, December 20, 2006. A psychological or medical report may constitute objective evidence that it would be unduly harsh to expect a claimant to move to another part of the country. Failure of the Board to at least mention the medical report in its reasons constitutes a serious error. See also Hernandez Gonzales, Karla del Carmen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2265-08), Hughes, November 13, 2008; 2008 FC 1259, where the claimant argued that the IFA was unreasonable in the circumstances and provided a psychologist report which opined that if the claimant was returned to Mexico, she would suffer "full-blown anxiety attacks along with severe inability to cope with the debilitating fear". The RPD found that the IFA was not unreasonable because there was no evidence that treatment would be lacking in Mexico and that the claimant had already availed herself of such treatment in Mexico earlier. This finding was upheld by the Court. A similar finding was made in Flores Argote, Maria de Lourdes v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3029-08), Zinn, February 9, 2009; 2009 FC 128.

Return to note 65 referrer

Previous | Table of Contents | Next