Background
Gursharan Singh, a Sikh citizen of India, arrived in Canada in February 2024 alleging a fear of persecution because of his interfaith relationship with a Muslim woman. He said his girlfriend’s father first arranged for armed men to attack him and later, working with a corrupt local politician, had local police detain and threaten him. Singh stated that he then hid with his uncle in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, but police came to his uncle’s home seeking him until they were bribed to leave.
Singh sought judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division’s June 27, 2025 decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division’s finding that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Both divisions accepted his allegations as true but found an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bengaluru or Kolkata. They concluded that his agents of harm were local actors who lacked the capacity to locate him or leverage officials in those cities. The RAD also assessed his education, work history, and language ability and found relocation was not unreasonable.
Singh argued that the RAD’s decision was internally inconsistent because police had already sought him in another state. He also relied on country evidence indicating that politically motivated police can track people nationwide, challenged the RAD’s reliance on formal police tracking mechanisms despite his alleged extrajudicial mistreatment, and said the relocation analysis was generic. He further contended that the RAD failed to provide a distinct section 97 analysis concerning cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Thorne dismissed the application, holding that Singh had not established that the RAD’s decision was unreasonable. The Court explained that it could intervene only if the decision lacked justification, transparency, or intelligibility. It found that Singh’s arguments essentially sought reweighing of the evidence, which is not the Court’s role on judicial review.
The Court rejected the inconsistency argument. The RAD had not ignored the police visit to his uncle’s home; it explained that Singh had testified that police found him there because his former girlfriend’s father had business connections in the area and because he stayed with a family member. There was no comparable evidence concerning Bengaluru or Kolkata. The Court also noted that Singh’s newer argument—that the uncle’s local police acted only at the request of his hometown police—contradicted his earlier direct evidence and, at best, invited reweighing.
The Court further held that the RAD reasonably addressed the absence of evidence that the agents of harm could exert political pressure in the IFA cities. Its CCTNS reasoning was also intelligible: although Singh alleged extrajudicial local police mistreatment, there was no evidence of a First Information Report, warrant, or entry of his information into the tracking system. The RAD had conducted an individualized assessment, including available health and mental-health services and the ability to practise his religion. Citing Ranganathan, the Court emphasized the very high second-branch IFA threshold and Singh’s burden to establish that relocation would jeopardize his life and safety. Finally, because the RAD adopted analysis addressing both sections 96 and 97, and a viable IFA negates either claim, no separate section 97 analysis was required.
Key Takeaways
- Accepting a refugee claimant’s allegations does not prevent a decision-maker from finding a viable internal flight alternative.
- Evidence that police located a claimant where an agent of harm had connections does not necessarily establish nationwide tracking capacity.
- Judicial review examines justification, intelligibility, and transparency; it does not permit the Court to reweigh evidence.
- A viable IFA can defeat claims under both sections 96 and 97 without a separate section 97 analysis.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how courts distinguish a reasonableness challenge from a request for a different evidentiary outcome. It also underscores the importance of evidence connecting alleged agents of harm to proposed IFA locations and of individualized evidence meeting the demanding second branch of the IFA test.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The parties proposed no question for certification, and the Court agreed that none arose; no question of general importance was certified.