- The internal flight alternative analysis generally involves two connected questions, both of which need to be answered in a way that supports refusing the claim before an IFA finding…
- Refugee protection under Part 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is not simply about proving fear exists somewhere in the country — it's about whether the person has no safe…
One of the more counterintuitive outcomes in Canadian refugee law is a claim being refused even though the decision-maker accepts that the person genuinely fears persecution. This happens through the internal flight alternative — often called IFA — a finding that, even if the fear is real in one part of the claimant's home country, there is somewhere else within that same country where the person could safely and reasonably have lived instead.
Understanding how the IFA test works, and what a claimant can do to respond to it, is essential for anyone whose case might turn on this issue.
What the IFA Test Asks
The internal flight alternative analysis generally involves two connected questions, both of which need to be answered in a way that supports refusing the claim before an IFA finding will actually defeat it:
- Is there a specific place within the home country where the claimant would not face a serious possibility of persecution, or a risk to life or of cruel treatment?
- Would it be reasonable, in light of the claimant's particular circumstances, to expect them to relocate to and live in that place?
Both parts matter. A location that is technically safer but unreasonable to expect someone to actually live in — because of, for example, a lack of any support network, serious practical barriers, or conditions that would themselves amount to undue hardship — does not satisfy the second part of the test, even if the first part is met.
Why Genuine Fear Doesn't Always Mean a Successful Claim
Refugee protection under Part 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is not simply about proving fear exists somewhere in the country — it's about whether the person has no safe and reasonable place to go within their own country before international protection becomes necessary. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board can, and does, accept that a claimant genuinely fears the specific individuals or group in their home region while still finding that a viable, reasonable alternative exists elsewhere in that same country.
This is why a claimant's credibility being fully accepted does not guarantee a successful outcome — an IFA finding can defeat the claim on a separate basis entirely.
Factors Considered in an IFA Analysis
| Factor | What it typically involves |
|---|---|
| Reach of the agent of persecution | Whether the person or group the claimant fears has the ability and motivation to pursue them into the proposed alternative location |
| Practical access | Whether the claimant could realistically travel to and enter the proposed location |
| Living conditions | Whether the claimant could find housing, work, or support in the new location without undue hardship |
| Personal circumstances | Age, health, language, family and social ties, and other individual factors relevant to whether relocation is reasonable |
| General safety of the location | Whether the proposed area is itself free from the type of risk the claimant fears |
No single factor is automatically decisive — the analysis looks at the claimant's specific situation rather than applying a generic standard of what any person could tolerate.
Who Raises the IFA Issue
An IFA argument may be raised by the Minister's representative during a hearing, or the Refugee Protection Division may raise it on its own where the evidence suggests it's relevant. Either way, a claimant is entitled to know that IFA is in issue and to respond to it with evidence and argument before a decision is made — it should not come as a surprise finding buried in written reasons with no chance to address it.
Responding to an IFA Argument
A claimant facing a potential IFA finding generally needs to address both parts of the test directly:
- Evidence about the agent of persecution's reach — for example, connections, resources, or networks that could extend beyond the region of original persecution.
- Evidence about conditions in the proposed location — safety, discrimination, availability of livelihood, and support networks (or the lack of them).
- Personal circumstances that make relocation genuinely unreasonable, not merely inconvenient or undesirable.
General statements that a country is "unsafe everywhere" are rarely enough on their own — specific, credible evidence tied to the proposed location and the claimant's own circumstances carries far more weight.
What Happens If a Claim Is Refused on IFA Grounds
If the RPD refuses a claim based on an IFA finding, the claimant's options typically include an appeal within the Immigration and Refugee Board system, where available, or an application for leave to the Federal Court for judicial review in cases where no such appeal exists. As of mid-2026, a Federal Court leave application generally must be filed within 15 days for matters arising in Canada, or 60 days for matters arising outside Canada, from the date of the decision — figures change, so verify the current deadline before relying on it. Judicial review examines whether the decision was legally and procedurally sound, not a fresh review of the facts.
Frequently asked questions
If the decision-maker believes my story, can I still lose on IFA grounds?
Yes. An IFA finding is a separate legal basis for refusal — accepting your credibility doesn't resolve whether a safe, reasonable place existed for you within your own country.
Does IFA apply to every country, or only larger ones?
It applies in principle to any country where a genuinely safe and reasonable alternative location can be identified. In practice, it's raised more often for larger countries with regions that differ significantly in safety and conditions, but there's no fixed rule limiting it by country size.
What counts as "unreasonable" to relocate?
There's no fixed checklist — it depends on your specific circumstances, including things like health, family ties, language, and realistic prospects for safety and survival in the proposed location. General discomfort or a lower standard of living alone is unlikely to be enough.
Can I raise new evidence about the proposed location after the hearing?
Generally, evidence needs to be presented before the decision is made. If new, relevant information emerges afterward, speak with your lawyer promptly about what options, if any, remain available.
This is an immigration question
Start a file online — flat, published fees, reviewed by a licensed Ontario lawyer before a dollar is owed.