Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
Sahil Kumar challenged a June 13, 2025 decision of the Refugee Appeal Division rejecting his appeal on the basis that Shimla, India was a viable internal flight alternative. The RAD held that the first part of the internal flight alternative test was not met, because there was no evidence the persecutor would be motivated to pursue him there. Before the RAD he had said that his former brother-in-law, Sumit, controlled the Haryana police and had gone to family members in two cities asking where he was. Affidavits from his father and sister described harassment of the family and of another relative who was accused of hiding him and was targeted and tortured by police.
What the Court Decided
Justice Ngo granted the judicial review, set the decision aside and sent it back to another decision-maker. The RAD's conclusions — that the applicant did not say why Sumit targeted the relative, that no family member alleged police mistreatment, and that nothing linked the conflict to him — could not be squared with the affidavits. The RAD's reasons spoke of an absence of evidence, not an insufficiency, and that was contradicted by the record. The Respondent's attempt to argue the affidavits were vague tried to buttress reasons the RAD never gave. The decision lacked transparency, intelligibility and justification.
“this conclusion is contradicted by the record”— Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1208, para. 15
Does This Affect You?
- ✓A RAD appeal was rejected on the basis that a specific city offered a viable internal flight alternative.
- ✓Family members have been questioned or harassed by the agent of persecution about your whereabouts.
- ✓You are weighing whether a finding that contradicts your evidence can be challenged on judicial review.
Key Takeaways
- The RAD cannot say there is no evidence when affidavits in the record say otherwise.
- Exposure of relatives to harm does not automatically make an IFA unreasonable, but the RAD must actually analyse it.
- The government cannot rescue a decision with reasoning the decision-maker did not give.