Court Upholds Refugee Denial, Affirms Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) Analysis
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1707
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-11645-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Hardono v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1707
Two brothers from Indonesia, of Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith, sought refugee protection due to persecution. Their claims were denied by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) on the basis that they had viable Internal Flight Alternatives (IFAs) in Christian-majority areas of Indonesia.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision to be reasonable. The Court affirmed that the RAD properly weighed the evidence, considered the applicants' intersectional identities, and correctly determined they would not face a serious possibility of persecution in the identified IFAs.
Key Quote from the Court
The RAD concluded that while the situation for Chinese-Christians in Indonesia may give rise to discrimination, this discrimination, even if cumulative, does not amount to persecution. Moreover, MM. Hardono did not provide any convincing evidence regarding the situation of Chinese-Christians in the IFA locations.
Expert Takeaways
-
The Onus is on the Claimant to Disprove IFAs Once a decision-maker identifies a potential Internal Flight Alternative (IFA), the burden shifts to the refugee claimant to prove that they would face a serious risk of persecution in that specific location or that it would be objectively unreasonable to relocate there.
-
Evidence Must Be Specific to the IFA General evidence of country-wide discrimination is not enough. This case shows that claimants must provide specific, convincing evidence demonstrating a risk of persecution within the proposed IFA cities or provinces, not just in their home region.
-
Decision-Makers Can Weigh Evidence Selectively The Court gives significant deference to how tribunals like the RAD weigh evidence. The RAD is entitled to prefer a comprehensive country report (like the Australian Report) over news articles, provided its reasoning is clear and logical. A failure to mention every piece of evidence is not an automatic error.
-
Intersectional Claims Require Careful Analysis While the RAD considered the applicants' dual identity as Chinese-Christians, it concluded the cumulative discrimination did not rise to the level of persecution in the IFAs. This highlights that for intersectional claims, the key is to demonstrate how the combination of identities creates a specific risk in the proposed relocation area.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Disagree with your IRCC decision?
Find out whether your refusal can be challenged at the Federal Court of Canada.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Refugee Claim / Asylum rulings
Federal Court Slams Refugee Board's 'Unreasonable' Credibility Findings
Federal Court: IRCC's Delays Cannot Justify Further Delays in Refugee PR Case
Federal Court: Failure to Prove Identity is Fatal to a Refugee Claim
Federal Court: Inconsistent Testimony Fatal to Refugee Credibility
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)