Refugee Claim Denied: Credibility & Safe Alternatives

July 15, 2025

Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 121

Can a Refugee Claim Be Denied If You Could Find Safety Elsewhere?

The Federal Court’s recent decision in Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 121, provides important insights into the treatment of refugee claims and the limits of judicial review in Canadian immigration law. This case centered on Rohit Kumar, an applicant seeking refugee protection in Canada, and ultimately highlights the interplay between internal flight alternatives (IFA), credibility assessments, and procedural rules governing the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). Below, we delve into the history, facts, decision, and jurisprudential implications of this case.

Rohit Kumar's Refugee Story

Rohit Kumar fled India and sought refugee protection in Canada, citing fear of persecution by Indian police. His claim arose from an incident in which he assisted his friend and the friend’s girlfriend. This act reportedly angered local authorities, leading to his detention, physical abuse, and a false accusation of murder following the friend’s death. Kumar argued that the Indian police continued to pose a threat to his safety, should he return to India.

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada assessed Kumar’s case and rejected his claim on two grounds:

  1. Credibility: The RPD found discrepancies in Kumar’s account that undermined his credibility.
  2. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA): The RPD concluded that Kumar had a safe and reasonable option to relocate within India, specifically to New Delhi.

Kumar appealed the RPD’s decision to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), challenging only the credibility findings. Notably, he did not contest the RPD’s determination regarding the IFA.

The RAD allowed Kumar’s appeal on the issue of credibility, agreeing that the RPD’s analysis was flawed. However, the RAD independently assessed the IFA finding and upheld the RPD’s conclusion that Kumar could safely relocate to New Delhi. Consequently, Kumar’s refugee claim remained denied.

Kumar then sought judicial review of the RAD’s decision before the Federal Court, focusing solely on the IFA analysis.

The Federal Court’s Decision

Madam Justice Allyson Whyte Nowak delivered the decision in Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) on January 21, 2025. The Federal Court dismissed Kumar’s application for judicial review, relying on procedural and substantive grounds:

  1. Procedural Barriers: The Court emphasized that Kumar could not challenge the IFA analysis at the judicial review stage because he had not raised this issue before the RAD. Justice Whyte Nowak referenced Rule 3(3)(g) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257, and supporting case law, including Broni v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 365 and Dhillon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 321. These decisions underscore the principle that issues not raised on appeal cannot later be revisited in judicial review proceedings.
  2. Substantive Analysis: Justice Whyte Nowak noted that even if the IFA analysis were reviewable, the RAD’s conclusion regarding the reasonableness and safety of relocation to New Delhi aligned with established jurisprudence. Specifically, the Court cited Wu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1123, where it was held that an unchallenged IFA finding renders an appeal’s determinative issue dispositive of the refugee claim.

The Court’s judgment included two key elements:

  • The application for judicial review was dismissed.
  • No question of general importance was certified.

Key Legal Principles and Jurisprudence

The decision in Kumar v. Canada rests on several foundational principles in Canadian refugee law:

  1. Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

The concept of an IFA plays a critical role in determining refugee claims. Under Canadian law, a claimant is not considered a refugee if they can safely and reasonably relocate to another part of their home country. Both the RPD and RAD determined that New Delhi met this criterion for Kumar, as the risks he faced were localized and did not extend throughout India.

  1. Procedural Requirements for Appeals and Judicial Review

Rule 3(3)(g) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules limits judicial review to issues that were properly raised on appeal. This rule ensures that appellate bodies address substantive matters before they reach the courts. The Court’s reliance on Broni and Dhillon reinforces the procedural importance of exhausting all avenues of appeal.

  1. Precedential Support

The Court’s reliance on Wu v. Canada reflects the principle that an unchallenged IFA finding at the RAD level effectively precludes further judicial scrutiny. In Wu, Justice Roy emphasized that when an IFA finding disposes of a claim, additional commentary from the RAD is surplus and cannot form the basis for judicial review.

  1. Credibility and its Limited Scope in Judicial Review

Although Kumar successfully challenged the RPD’s credibility findings at the RAD, his failure to contest the IFA determination rendered the RAD’s decision final on that point. This highlights the limited scope of judicial review, which is not intended to re-litigate issues already resolved at earlier stages.

Jurisprudential Implications

The decision in Kumar v. Canada affirms and builds upon prior case law, solidifying important principles in refugee law:

  • Positive References: The Court’s reliance on Broni, Dhillon, and Wu underscores their continued relevance in shaping procedural fairness and the treatment of IFA findings. These cases emphasize the importance of raising all substantive issues at the earliest opportunity.
  • Reverted Decisions: While the RPD’s credibility findings were overturned by the RAD, this reversal had no practical impact on Kumar’s claim due to the unchallenged IFA finding. This outcome illustrates the interplay between credibility and IFA assessments in refugee determinations.

Conclusion

Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 121 serves as a compelling example of the procedural and substantive complexities in Canadian refugee law. The case underscores the critical importance of addressing all pertinent issues at the RAD level and demonstrates how unchallenged findings can foreclose further judicial scrutiny.

For legal practitioners, this decision is a reminder of the procedural rigor required in refugee appeals and the necessity of presenting a comprehensive case at every stage of the process. By affirming established jurisprudence, the Federal Court’s decision reinforces the delicate balance between procedural efficiency and substantive justice in Canada’s immigration system.