You told the Board what happened to you, and the member seemed to accept it. Then the hearing turned to a different question: why can’t you live in another city in your own country? For many claimants, that question, not credibility, is where the claim is won or lost.
What an internal flight alternative is
Refugee protection is a last resort. If there is a place in your own country where you would be safe and could reasonably live, Canada’s protection is not needed. That place is called an internal flight alternative, or IFA.
An IFA finding does not mean the Board disbelieved you. A claim can be refused on IFA grounds even when every word of your story is accepted.
The two-part test
The Board applies a two-part test.
Part one: would you be safe there? The question is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution, or a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment, in the proposed location. This turns largely on the agent of harm. Does the person or group you fear have the means to find you there? Do they have the motivation to look? A local gang, an abusive family member and a national security service are very different in reach.
Part two: would it be reasonable to expect you to live there? Even if you would be safe, the location must be one you could relocate to without undue hardship, considering your personal circumstances. The threshold is high. Inconvenience, loss of a job, separation from family or a lower standard of living are generally not enough. The conditions must be severe enough to jeopardize your life and safety.
Once the Board identifies a proposed IFA, the burden is on you to show that one part of the test is not met.
How the issue is raised
The Board must give notice that IFA is an issue and name the specific location or locations it is considering. This usually happens before the hearing or at its start. If the location is not named, you cannot fairly respond to it, and a decision that relies on an unnamed IFA can be challenged.
Building the response
A strong IFA response is specific. It usually addresses:
- Reach of the agent of harm: evidence that the persecutor has found people in other cities, has connections to police or officials, or has already tracked you or your family after a move.
- Motivation: why the persecutor would still be looking for you, including threats made after you left and visits to your family.
- How you would be found: national ID systems, residence registration, checkpoints, tenancy rules and the practical need to register with authorities.
- Your personal profile: gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, age, language and whether you would be identifiable as an outsider in the proposed location.
- Country conditions: the Board’s National Documentation Package and other reliable sources on the proposed city, not just the country as a whole.
General statements that you “would not be safe anywhere” rarely succeed. Evidence tied to the named location does.
If the claim is refused on IFA grounds
An IFA refusal can be appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division where you have a right of appeal, and new evidence about the proposed location may be admissible there. Judicial review at the Federal Court is available where the decision is unreasonable, for example where the Board ignored evidence about the agent of harm’s reach or applied the wrong test. Our posts on what happens if the RPD refuses your claim and when the RAD dismisses an appeal set out the next steps.
How we can help
At Kabir & Alam, we prepare refugee claims with the IFA issue in mind from the start, and we handle RAD appeals and judicial reviews where IFA findings were wrong. Read more about our refugee law practice or book a consultation with us.
This post is general information about Canadian immigration law and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Speak with a lawyer about your situation before making decisions.