Background
Meena Rani (a Christian widow) and her adult son Amit Raj Teji applied for refugee protection in Canada, claiming persecution in Punjab by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist group, and corrupt police. The applicants held religious gatherings in their home, received threats from the local RSS leader, and were accused of converting others to Christianity. Police detained the Principal Applicant and her husband, releasing them only after a bribe; the husband subsequently disappeared. The Principal Applicant additionally feared persecution based on her gender.
The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected their claim in November 2024, finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Kolkata, Hyderabad, and Chennai. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed the appeal in March 2025. The applicants then sought judicial review, arguing the RAD erred by finding an IFA was available to them.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Saint-Fleur dismissed the judicial review application, upholding the RAD’s decision that a viable IFA existed. The court applied the well-established two-prong IFA test: (1) whether there is a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA location, and (2) whether it would be unreasonable for the applicants to relocate there.
On the first prong, the court found the RAD reasonably concluded that while local police in Punjab had shown interest in extracting bribes from the applicants, there was insufficient evidence they had the motivation or means to pursue them in Kolkata across state lines. The applicants had provided no evidence they were subjects of a formal police investigation or criminal charges. Similarly, there was no evidence the RSS knew the applicants’ whereabouts or was actively searching for them after they left Punjab. Though general religious discrimination against Christians exists in India, the court found this did not establish that these specific agents of persecution would pursue the applicants in Kolkata.
On the second prong, the court held it was not unreasonable for the applicants to relocate. While acknowledging gendered impacts of violence and employment discrimination, the court found the presence of the adult son provided male support, and the applicants had failed to demonstrate that relocation would be unduly harsh considering all personal circumstances—religion, gender, age, education, languages, and access to housing and services.
Key Takeaways
- Applicants bear the burden of proving an IFA is not viable once the decision-maker identifies a proposed location.
- General evidence of discrimination against a group (Christians in India) does not establish that specific agents of persecution will pursue a particular applicant across state lines without evidence of ongoing investigation, formal charges, or demonstrated means and motivation.
- An IFA analysis must consider intersectional factors (gender, religion, age, economic status, family support) holistically, but evidence of social difficulties does not automatically render relocation unreasonable.
- Past local extortion and threats are insufficient to establish cross-state pursuit absent evidence of a formal police investigation or the seriousness to warrant interstate resources.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the evidentiary burden applicants face in challenging IFA findings in refugee law. It clarifies that anecdotal evidence of group persecution—even well-documented religious discrimination—does not satisfy the serious possibility standard when particularized evidence is lacking. The court’s approach reflects a restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a serious possibility of persecution in a proposed location, requiring specific evidence that identified agents of persecution have the motivation and means to pursue the applicant there.
The decision also signals that refugee adjudicators may find an IFA viable even where applicants face intersectional vulnerabilities (gender-based violence, religious minority status, economic dependence). This places a high bar on applicants to articulate not just the existence of risks, but why relocation to a large metropolitan area would be unreasonable in light of available family or community support.