Background
Amrik Singh and Karamjit Kaur, citizens of India, sought refugee protection in Canada. They alleged that Punjabi police had detained and assaulted them because the authorities believed they supported Sikh militants. They said the suspicion arose after Singh helped a person find employment and later learned that the person was a suspected Sikh militant. They also claimed that, after coming to Canada, they became supporters of Khalistan.
The Refugee Protection Division rejected their claims, finding that Mumbai offered a viable internal flight alternative and that their asserted post-arrival support for Khalistan was not credible. The Refugee Appeal Division independently assessed the evidence and upheld that result. It concluded that the evidence did not show that the police were motivated to locate and harm the applicants in Mumbai and confirmed that they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. Justice Thorne held that the RAD reasonably assessed whether the alleged agents of harm were motivated to pursue the applicants outside Punjab. Although police visits to the applicants’ home provided some evidence of continued interest, the RAD reasonably found that those local searches did not establish a motivation to pursue them across India or in Mumbai. The applicants’ challenge effectively asked the Court to reweigh evidence, which is not the Court’s role on reasonableness review.
The Court also rejected the argument that the RAD failed to consider whether relocation to Mumbai would be reasonable. The applicants had conceded that issue before the RAD. In any event, the RAD reviewed, agreed with, and adopted the RPD’s reasoning on the second branch of the internal-flight-alternative test. Its decision displayed a rational, justified, transparent, and intelligible chain of analysis. No question of general importance was certified.
Key Takeaways
- A viable internal flight alternative defeats a refugee claim when the claimant cannot establish a serious possibility of persecution or a personalized risk in the proposed location and relocation there would not be unreasonable.
- Evidence that police searched for claimants at their known local residence does not necessarily establish motivation to pursue them nationwide; the tribunal may assess the geographic scope and practical significance of those searches.
- A reviewing court will not reweigh evidence reasonably assessed by the RAD, particularly where an applicant conceded an element of the applicable test before the tribunal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between local police interest and evidence of a nationwide motivation to pursue a refugee claimant. Under the first branch of the internal-flight-alternative test, proof that an agent of harm has the ability to locate a claimant is insufficient without evidence of motivation to search for and harm that person in the proposed refuge.
The judgment also underscores the consequences of concessions and imprecise advocacy. The Court criticized submissions that attacked findings the RAD had not made and warned that indiscriminate use of boilerplate or recycled arguments can harm counsel’s professional reputation and, more importantly, the client’s interests.