Background
Two Libyan citizens sought asylum in Canada after experiencing violence from militia groups in Tripoli. The principal applicant was kidnapped by the Zintan militia in September 2022 while working as a salesman; he escaped but learned armed men had visited his family home seeking him. The associate applicant faced threats from a business partner connected to armed militia and was targeted at his home in August 2022. Both obtained U.S. visas and eventually travelled to Canada in March 2023, initiating refugee protection claims in April 2023.
The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the claimants credible but dismissed their claims, determining they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Benghazi. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld this decision. The claimants sought judicial review, arguing the RAD erred in failing to consider Libya’s Administrative Deferral of Removal, misapprehending evidence about country conditions, and making unsupported findings about the viability of relocation to Benghazi.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Gleeson dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD’s decision was reasonable. The court upheld the RAD’s application of the two-part Rasaratnam test for IFA analysis: (1) whether claimants would face persecution in the proposed location, and (2) whether relocation would be objectively reasonable in all circumstances including personal factors. The RAD reasonably found no serious possibility of persecution in Benghazi and that relocation was objectively reasonable.
The court rejected the argument that the Administrative Deferral of Removal was a relevant consideration in the IFA analysis, holding that an ADR addresses temporary and generalized circumstances affecting entire populations, not the individualized assessment required for refugee determinations. The court found the RAD appropriately engaged with country condition evidence, acknowledged challenges posed by internal displacement in Libya, but correctly noted that general hardship—loss of family, employment, or lower living standards—does not meet the high threshold for rendering an IFA unreasonable. The claimants had the burden of demonstrating conditions in Benghazi would jeopardize their life and safety.
Key Takeaways
- Administrative Deferral of Removal does not constitute a required consideration when assessing whether an internal flight alternative is viable; ADR applies to generalized circumstances, not individualized refugee determinations.
- The threshold for establishing an IFA is unreasonable requires demonstrating conditions would jeopardize life and safety—generalized country conditions affecting the broader population are insufficient without evidence the claimant personally fits a profile at specific risk.
- Decision-makers may reasonably note that claimants do not fit identified high-risk profiles (such as women, children, or persons with disabilities) when country evidence distinguishes vulnerability by category.
- Arguments and evidence not raised before the decision-maker cannot support grounds for judicial review.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies important boundaries in Canadian refugee law. It establishes that generalized country conditions and administrative deferral mechanisms do not automatically undermine the viability of internal flight alternatives. For claimants facing persecution in one region, the burden remains high to prove relocation to another area would be genuinely impossible or unduly harsh rather than merely inconvenient or economically disadvantageous. The decision reinforces that decision-makers need not engage with arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.
The ruling has practical implications for refugee claims involving regional violence or militia persecution in states like Libya. It signals that courts will uphold IFA findings where evidence shows improving conditions over time or where claimants lack characteristics associated with heightened vulnerability, even where country conditions remain generally difficult. This narrows the grounds on which claimants can challenge IFA determinations on judicial review.