Federal Court Allows Judicial Review of Refugee Protection Claim

Date: 20260429 Docket: IMM-234-25 Citation: 2026 FC 571 Ottawa, Ontario, April 29, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicants and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicants are a couple, [NAME] and [NAME], and their three minor children. The Applicants made a claim for refugee protection because of their fear of a cartel in Mexico. The Refugee Protection Division ( “RPD” ) refused their claims because of the availability of a viable Internal Flight Alternative ( “IFA” ). The Applicants appealed. The Refugee Appeal Division ( “RAD” ) confirmed the RPD’s decision and found that the Applicants had a viable IFA. The Applicants challenge the RAD’s decision on judicial review. [ 2 ] The determinative issue on judicial review is whether the RAD’s substantive assessment of the first prong of the IFA test was reasonable. I agree with the Applicants that the RAD’s reasoning is not intelligible and must be set aside. I am allowing the judicial review.

II. Background to the Claim [ 3 ] In July 2023, a family member of [NAME], who is a member of a cartel, visited [NAME]’s home and introduced him to another cartel member ( “[NAME]” ). [NAME] told [NAME] he had to assist the cartel with investigating a phone registration and with selling drugs to repay his deceased brother’s debt to the cartel. [NAME] threatened [NAME] that if he did not comply, the cartel would kill him and his family. A few days later, [NAME] returned and obtained the information about the phone number from [NAME] and repeated his warning about selling drugs to repay the debt. Shortly after, the Applicants fled Mexico. [ 4 ] The Applicants’ family members had a few encounters with the cartel members since they left the country. In March 2024, a car pulled in front of [NAME]’s ([NAME]’s common-law partner) sister’s home. The man in the car asked about [NAME]’s whereabouts. [NAME] asked the man to identify himself and he replied: “[NAME] knows who is looking for him.” [ 5 ] In May 2024, while [NAME] was checking in on the Applicants’ home, the same man from March 2024 arrived at the home and told her to tell [NAME] to come outside. [NAME] explained he was not there and that she did not know when he would return. [ 6 ] In April 2024, [NAME]’s mother also had an encounter with a member of the cartel. The man, who was known to [NAME]’s mother as the cartel recruiter of her deceased son, had thought she was filming him. He told her to stop filming, or he would “take care” of her and [NAME].

III. Analysis [ 7 ] The two-step IFA test first evaluates the safety of the relocation: whether the claimant would be subject to a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 and/or to a risk of harm under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 in the proposed IFA. [ADDRESS] has affirmed that in evaluating whether there is section 96 or section 97 risk in the IFA, the decision-maker can consider the means and motivation of the agent of persecution in pursuing the claimants in the proposed locations. [ 8 ] The RAD, like the RPD found the Applicants to be credible in their allegations. The RAD’s determination that the proposed IFA was safe rested on its view that the agents of persecution, the cartel, would not be motivated to pursue the Applicants in that location. The RAD’s motivation finding principally relied on two factors: i) [NAME]’s brother’s debt to the cartel was likely not significant because it took eight years after his death for the cartel to pursue [NAME] for repayment; and ii) while the cartel had approached his family members, asking about [NAME]’s whereabouts, these inquiries were only limited to the Applicants’ home region. [ 9 ] I find neither of these factors grounding the RAD’s motivation finding stand up to scrutiny. The RAD’s reasoning relies on a speculative chain of weak inferences instead of the evidence, which it accepted as credible, that directly counters these inferences. [ 10 ] The RAD finds that because the cartel waited eight years to pursue [NAME], the debt could not have been large and therefore, he is not of great interest to the cartel. This finding runs counter to the Applicants’ experience, which was that even after eight years, [NAME] was still pursued, threatened and when he refused to assist and fled the country, his family members were also contacted about his whereabouts. [ 11 ] The Respondent relied on several recent decisions relating to the “passage of time” and lack of contact with family members ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 597 ; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1368; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 240). As I explained at the hearing, the reasoning in these decisions is not analogous to the RAD’s reasoning here. Those decisions consider the reliance of a sustained lack of contact with family members as a factor in assessing whether there is motivation. But here, there was contact after many years, and there continued to be after the Applicants fled. [ 12 ] The second factor, about the lack of evidence of targeting outside the home area, is also not indicative of a lack of motivation. There was no evidence before the RAD that the Applicants’ family members lived outside of their home area. To the contrary, the evidence in the record seemed to establish that the Applicants’ family members were living in the same area. In this circumstance, it is illogical to find the failure to pursue outside of that area indicates a lack of motivation – there is no indication that anyone connected to the Applicants lived outside of the area. [ 13 ] The RAD’s determinative motivation finding, the sole basis on which it rejected the Applicants’ claim for protection, is not based on reasoning that “adds up” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 104). It must be set aside and be redetermined.

JUDGMENT in IMM-234-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is allowed; The decision dated November 22, 2024 is set aside and sent back to be redetermined by a different decision-maker; and No serious question of general importance is certified. blank "Lobat Sadrehashemi" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-234-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] ET AL. v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 14, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: SADREHASHEMI J DATED: APRIL 29, 2026 APPEARANCE : [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], BC [NAME] Department of Justice Canada Vancouver, BC For The Respondent