Internal flight alternative

Topic Refugee law 🇨🇦 Verified: 2026-05

Overview

The internal flight alternative (IFA) doctrine holds that a refugee claimant is not a Convention refugee if they can safely and reasonably relocate to another part of their country of nationality where they would not face persecution. Canada applies a two-part test: (1) the RPD must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA location; and (2) it must not be unreasonable in all the circumstances for the claimant to seek refuge in that location. Both parts must be established for the IFA to apply.

The IFA analysis is a fundamental part of most refugee claims in Canada. If a viable IFA exists, the claim will fail regardless of whether persecution exists in the claimant's home region. The burden of identifying a proposed IFA location rests with the Minister; however, in practice the RPD often raises IFA locations in its own analysis.

Legal basis

IRPA s 96 — the refugee definition, which incorporates the requirement to be "unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection" of their country — this is interpreted to include the requirement to consider relocation options within the country
Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1992] 1 FC 706 (CA) — the leading Federal Court of Appeal decision establishing the two-part IFA test
Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1994] 1 FC 589 (CA) — elaborates the reasonableness component of the IFA test

How it works

Part 1 — No serious possibility of persecution in the IFA location

The first part of the test asks whether there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in the proposed IFA location. The standard is the same as for the main refugee claim: a serious possibility (more than a mere possibility but not necessarily a balance of probabilities).

Key considerations include:

Whether the persecutor has the motivation and the means to locate and harm the claimant in the IFA location
Whether national (rather than regional) agents of persecution exist — state actors in particular are presumed to have nationwide reach
Whether the persecution is based on an attribute of the claimant that follows them wherever they go (e.g., sexual orientation, ethnicity)

Part 2 — Reasonableness

Even if no persecution exists in the IFA location, it may still be unreasonable in all the circumstances to require the claimant to relocate there. The reasonableness analysis is objective and considers conditions in the IFA location as they affect the claimant personally. Factors include:

Living conditions in the IFA location (poverty, housing, employment)
The claimant's personal circumstances (age, health, family ties, language)
Discrimination that falls short of persecution but makes the location unliveable in practice
The effect of relocation on family members

The reasonableness test is a high bar: it is not met merely because relocation would be difficult or require sacrifice. The test is whether, given the claimant's particular circumstances, it would be objectively unreasonable to expect them to relocate.

Burden and notice

The Minister bears the burden of establishing the viability of an IFA location. However, the RPD commonly raises IFA locations during the hearing, and the claimant then has the opportunity to address both parts of the test. If the IFA is raised by the RPD without prior notice, the claimant must be given an opportunity to respond — failure to do so may be a reviewable error.