Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) — Refugee Protection Doctrine

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) is one of the most common reasons refugee claims are denied at the IRB Refugee Protection Division. The doctrine: if you could find safety elsewhere in your home country, you don't need international protection. Understanding IFA + how to overcome it is critical for refugee claim success.

Rasaratnam two-part test

Established by Supreme Court of Canada in Rasaratnam v Canada (1991):

Prong 1: Safety

Is the proposed IFA area objectively safe from the specific persecution the claimant faces? Considerations:

• State agent persecution: does state's reach extend to IFA area? (usually yes)
• Non-state actor persecution: does the actor have national reach? (gangs vs local issues)
• Country conditions evidence in IFA area
• Particular characteristics of the area (rural, urban, integrated, isolated)

Prong 2: Reasonableness

Considering the claimant's particular circumstances, is relocation to IFA area reasonable? Factors:

• Age (elderly + young children less able to relocate)
• Gender (women's vulnerability)
• Language (different language in IFA area = barrier)
• Family ties (no family in IFA area = harder)
• Religion (minority in IFA area)
• Work prospects (can claimant earn living?)
• Healthcare access
• Education access (for children)
• Personal characteristics (LGBTQ+, disability, etc.)

Common IFA scenarios by country

Pakistan

Common IFA argued: claimant from Sindh/Punjab can relocate to other province. Counter: Ahmadi persecution + religious minority threats often nationwide; gender-based + state agent persecution reaches everywhere; honour-based violence travels.

India

Common IFA: claimant from one state can relocate to another. Counter: caste persecution nationwide; specific religious groups vulnerable throughout (Sikh dissidents, Christian converts, certain Muslims); honour-based violence travels.

Mexico

Common IFA: claimant from cartel-violent state relocates to safer state. Counter: cartels increasingly have national reach; gender violence prevalent throughout; state corruption + collusion with cartels nationwide.

Nigeria

Common IFA: claimant from north (Boko Haram) relocates to south. Counter: ethnic tensions in IFA area; LGBTQ+ persecution nationwide; gender-based violence + lack of state protection nationwide.

Sri Lanka

Common IFA: Tamil claimant from north relocates to south. Counter: surveillance + targeting of returnees with LTTE history; relocation requires language adjustment, employment loss, family separation.

Counter-IFA evidence

Safety prong defenses

• State agent persecution: state reaches everywhere
• National reach of non-state actor (gangs, ethnic groups, religious extremists)
• Specific evidence persecutors operate in IFA area
• Same-religion/ethnicity threats in IFA area
• Recent country conditions reports showing IFA insecurity

Reasonableness prong defenses

• Severe language barriers in IFA area
• No family or community support in IFA area
• Gender + age vulnerability (alone woman with children)
• Religious minority status in IFA area
• Inability to access healthcare for specific conditions
• No realistic employment prospects
• Geographic + transportation barriers

FAQ

Related: Refugee claim · s.96 vs s.97