Docket: IMM-21575-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1856
Ottawa, Ontario, November 21, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson
|
BETWEEN: |
|
HARIS AHAMED KAMAL MOHAMED |
|
MOHAMED RAFAN HARIS AHAMED |
|
MOHAMED RAZAN HARIS AHAMED |
|
BASILA BANU HARIS AHAMED |
|
MOHAMED RAHEEL HARIS AHAMED |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Principal Applicant [PA], Mr. Haris Ahamed Kamal Mohamed, his spouse, Ms. Basila Banu Haris Ahamed, and their minor children [Applicants] are Muslim citizens of India. They report a fear of persecution in India because of the PA’s political activism and their Muslim faith.
[2] The Refugee Protection Division [RPD] found the Applicants were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because they have a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] in India. In a decision dated October 31, 2024, the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] upheld the findings of the RPD. The Applicants seek judicial review of the RAD’s decision under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
[3] For the reasons set out below, the Application for Leave and for Judicial Review [Application] is dismissed.
II. Background
[4] The Applicants are from the state of Tamil Nadu in India, where the PA was a member of the Social Democratic Party of India [SDPI] and owned and operated a dairy farm.
[5] The PA states that, as an active member of the SDPI, he actively campaigned against the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] in the 2019 general elections and led the SDPI campaign in his ward. Following the election, he reports members of the BJP started to threaten those who had worked against the political party.
[6] In December 2020, the PA reports he sold his cattle and closed his farm, which he had operated since 2017, because of interference by the BJP and restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2021, following the sale of his cattle, members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS] – a Hindu nationalist organization – reportedly targeted the PA.
[7] In 2021 and 2022, the PA again campaigned for the SDPI in opposition of the BJP. In May 2022, the PA and his family encountered the local BJP leader, Muruganantham M [MM], and other BJP leaders while standing near a bus stop. They demanded the PA’s spouse remove her hijab, threatened the Applicants when they refused, and the PA was assaulted.
[8] In September 2022, the local police raided the Applicants’ house, finding the PA’s SDPI campaign material and religious books, and informed the adult Applicants the PA was to report to the police station. The Applicants, on advice from the PA’s parents, moved to Chennai to stay with relatives. A week after the police raid, officers of the National Investigation Agency [NIA] attended the Applicants’ home looking for the PA.
[9] The Applicants left India in November 2022 and sought refugee protection in Canada reporting they feared the BJP, the RSS, MM, the local police in Tamil Nadu, and the officers of the NIA.
[10] Finding that MM’s risk to the Applicants was tied to the police in Tamil Nadu, the RPD concluded it need not independently consider whether MM had the means or motivation to locate the Applicants within the proposed IFAs of Mumbai or Hyderabad. The RPD also concluded the local police in Tamil Nadu did not have the means, nor did the NIA and the RSS have the motivation, to locate the Applicants in the proposed IFAs, and that relocation would not be unreasonable. The RPD rejected the Applicants’ claim on the basis of a viable IFA.
III. Decision under Review
[11] In confirming the RPD’s decision, the RAD found the availability of an IFA to be determinative.
[12] The RAD first concluded the BJP and the RSS would not be motivated to locate the Applicants in the IFA because (1) the evidence does not establish that the BJP – as a political entity – is interested in the Applicants (rather, the PA was targeted by a local BJP candidate (MM), not the political party at large); (2) the RSS’s interest in the Applicants – based on a belief the PA may have slaughtered his cattle – is not ongoing as the PA sold his cattle.
[13] In determining MM would not be motivated to locate the Applicants in the IFA, the RAD held that MM’s interest in the Applicants arose because the PA was a political opponent, and therefore he would have no further interest were the Applicants to relocate to the IFA. The RAD also noted that MM had not actively sought out the Applicants since the PA had campaigned against him in September 2019 and found the incident in May 2022 to be a chance encounter.
[14] The RAD further concluded the NIA and police lacked the motivation to locate the Applicants in the IFA because the PA was never charged with a crime. The RAD also found that police interest in the Applicants was limited to taking direction from the NIA and their interest ceased when the NIA took control of the investigation into the Applicants. The RAD noted the NIA had not made a concerted effort to locate the PA after their last visit to PA’s parents’ house in the September 2022.
[15] Having determined the agents of harm were not motivated to locate the Applicants, the RAD held it was not necessary to consider whether the agents of harm had the means to do so.
[16] Lastly, the RAD held the Applicants had failed to demonstrate that the IFA would be unreasonable. Relying on objective country condition evidence, the RAD found the PA would be able to find employment and the Applicants would be able to locate housing, would not be targeted on the basis of their religion or caste, would not be at risk because of the PA’s political activism against the BJP, and could continue their mental health treatment in the IFA.
IV. Preliminary Matter
[17] The style of cause in the Application incorrectly identifies the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship as the Respondent. The proper Respondent is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, s 5(2) and IRPA, s 4(1)). The style of cause will be amended accordingly (Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, s 76).
V. Issues and Standard of Review
[18] The Parties submit, and I agree, that the Application raises a single issue: whether the RAD’s IFA decision was reasonable.
[19] The RAD’s decision is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness. A reasonable decision “is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker.”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 85). A reviewing court will intervene only if it is satisfied “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency.”
(Vavilov at para 100.)
VI. Analysis
A. The IFA test
[20] In considering the viability of the IFA, the RAD applied the well-established two-pronged test which requires it be satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities:
-
There is no serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm in the IFA; and
-
It is reasonable in the applicant's circumstances to relocate to the IFA.
Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706; Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589.
[21] The second prong of the test places a high evidentiary burden on an applicant to demonstrate that relocation to the IFA would be unreasonable (Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164 [Ranganathan]).
[22] The Applicants submit the RAD’s analysis of both prongs of the test was unreasonable.
B. First Prong of the IFA Test
[23] The Applicants argue the RAD misconstrued and failed to grapple with both the totality of the PA’s profile, as a “defender of minorities, activist, supporter of political opposition”
and member of the Muslim minority, and their submissions that novel risks would be encountered throughout India because the PA’s activism and anti-BJP opinion would persist and result in the same treatment from RSS and BJP members in those locations. In advancing this argument, the Applicants rely on Buyuksahin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 772 at para 29 [Buyuksahin] and Gopal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 71 at paras 18, 21-22 [Gopal].
[24] I disagree. The RAD acknowledged the Applicants’ submissions to the effect that the BJP and RSS have national reach and share an anti-Muslim ideology, but concluded the evidence failed to establish any BJP interest in the PA, or the Applicants more broadly. The RAD engaged with the Applicants’ evidence and found it disclosed an interest, albeit not a continued interest, in the PA from a local BJP politician, MM. This because the PA opposed MM in a local election, not because of anti-BJP activities. With respect to the risk posed by the RSS, the RAD found the evidence disclosed the RSS interest was the result of a belief the PA’s cattle had been sold for slaughter, which was not the case. Once this was made known to the RSS, interest in the PA had ceased.
[25] The RAD did not ignore or misconstrue the evidence or the totality of the PA’s reported profile as an activist and supporter of political minorities. The RAD’s motivation conclusions relied on the evidence as set out in the record. While the Applicants disagree with the RAD’s assessment and weighing of that evidence, this does not render the RAD’s conclusions or supporting analysis unreasonable.
[26] Nor did the RAD err by failing to consider treatment the Applicants would reportedly face on the basis of the PA’s reported profile as an activist and supporter of political minorities at the hands of the BJP throughout India. Unlike the situation in Buyuksahin, where the applicant was detained and mistreated on numerous occasions by the police and assaulted because of his ethnicity and religion – thus disclosing evidence of systematic persecution by government organizations – the Applicants were never detained or subjected to mistreatment by local police or the NIA. Nor have the Applicants taken issue with the RAD’s finding that the police and the NIA have not demonstrated a continued interest in them or ever charged the PA with a crime.
[27] Gopal is also readily distinguished. In that case, the RAD failed to address the asserted fear of persecution within the IFA. In this instance, the RAD acknowledged and addressed the Applicants’ asserted fear relating to the national reach of the BJP but reasonably found that the threat from the agents of persecution was local, the Applicants’ activities never having drawn “the ire of the [BJP] at large.”
[28] The RAD’s analysis under the first prong of the IFA test is based on the evidence, supported by cogent reasons, and is reasonable.
C. Second Prong of the IFA Test
[29] The Applicants argue that the analysis of the second prong of the IFA test is unreasonable because the RAD failed to:
-
Address the hardship the Applicants would face in view of the country condition evidence disclosing it is “extremely hard”
for Muslims to find new housing in cities in India;
-
Consider the country condition evidence in finding that there are no instances of attacks against Muslims in Mumbai - the proposed IFA.
[30] The Applicants’ view that the RAD’s housing conclusions are unreasonable is nothing more than a disagreement with the RAD’s weighing of the evidence. The RAD acknowledged the evidence to the effect that it is difficult or “extremely hard”
for Muslim families to rent in Indian cities, but also found there was no bar to access housing and that over two million Muslims resided in the proposed IFA of Mumbai.
[31] In these circumstances, the RAD concluded the Applicants would be able to locate housing, a determination that was reasonably available to it on the evidence. This is particularly so in view of the high threshold for demonstrating a proposed IFA is unreasonable.
[32] Nor have the Applicants persuaded me that the RAD ignored evidence of instances of attacks on Muslims in the IFA. The Applicants rely on reports in the record that address country conditions across India as opposed to the proposed IFA of Mumbai. While the Applicants have highlighted that Mumbai is referred to in certain reports, the references are made in the context of, first, an incident involving an Indian railway guard having killed three Muslim men inside a train “to Mumbai”
and, second, violent protests in a suburb of Mumbai where 13 were arrested. In my view, it was not unreasonable for the RAD to conclude this evidence did not satisfy the threshold of “actual and concrete evidence”
of life or safety jeopardizing conditions (Ranganathan at para 15), and the RAD reasonably concluded that there does not appear to be a pattern of attacks in Mumbai based on religion or caste.
[33] The RAD’s analysis in considering the second prong of IFA test was reasonable.
VII. Conclusion
[34] The Application is dismissed. Neither Party proposes a question for certification and none arises.
Email this Content