Court Overturns Refugee Denial, Confirms IFA Test is Not a 'Life or Safety' Standard
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1909
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-19178-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Mina v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1909
A Colombian family seeking refugee protection from an armed militia was denied by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). The RAD found they could safely relocate within Colombia under the Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) test, arguing the applicants failed to prove the move would put their 'lives and safety in jeopardy.'
Court Ruling
The Federal Court granted the family's application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the RAD applied an improperly restrictive standard for the IFA test and failed to address the applicants' arguments regarding racial discrimination and police violence in the proposed relocation city.
Key Quote from the Court
Beyond this, it is a matter of simple logic that the second prong of the IFA test was never intended to replicate the first prong which, as noted above, assesses whether a claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution... To do so would... elevate the threshold for the reasonableness prong of the IFA test above the first prong, rendering that first part of the assessment redundant.
Expert Takeaways
-
The IFA 'Reasonableness' Test is Broader than 'Life and Safety' This decision confirms that refugee claimants do not need to prove their life or safety would be in jeopardy to show an IFA is unreasonable. The correct standard is whether it would be 'objectively reasonable' or not 'unduly harsh' to expect them to relocate, which can include factors like discrimination, violence, and a child's best interests.
-
Decision-Makers Must Address All Key Submissions The RAD's failure to address the applicants' specific arguments about the risk of police violence due to racial discrimination was a key reason for the Court's decision. This highlights the importance of decision-makers providing responsive and justified reasons that engage with the claimant's evidence.
-
UNHCR Guidelines are a Constraint on IFA Decisions The Court emphasized that UNHCR guidelines on IFA, while not strictly binding, act as an international law constraint on Canadian decision-makers. These guidelines consider a wide range of factors, including personal circumstances and economic survival, which must be part of the analysis.
-
Cumulative Discrimination Can Render an IFA Unreasonable The judgment reinforces that conditions less severe than a direct threat to life, such as cumulative acts of discrimination, can make an IFA unreasonable. Claimants should provide detailed evidence on all potential hardships in the proposed IFA location, not just the risk from the original agent of persecution.
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.
Study, work, or visitor permit refused?
Many permit refusals are overturned on judicial review. Let us review your refusal letter.
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)