Federal Court Grants Judicial Review Over Procedural Fairness Issue

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260706 Docket: IMM-1801-25 Citation: 2026 FC 910 Ottawa, Ontario, July 6, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME_1]: [NAME_3] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ( “PRRA” ) decision made by a Senior Immigration Officer of [NAME_4] ( “[NAME_4]” ) (the “Officer” ) dated December 30, 2024, communicated to the Applicant on January 15, 2025 (the “Decision” ). The Decision refused the Applicant's request for protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 ( “ IRPA ” ). [ 2 ] The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable. He argues that the Officer failed to meaningfully engage with the evidence supporting his claim that he witnessed a [NAME_5] killing, that [NAME_5] subsequently sought to locate him, and that the [NAME_6] were unwilling or unable to provide effective protection. The Applicant further submits that the Officer unreasonably discounted corroborative evidence from family members and his former roommate, improperly assessed the existence of a continuing forward-looking risk, and erred in concluding that a viable internal flight alternative existed in Mérida, Yucatán. [ 3 ] The Respondent submits that the Decision is reasonable and transparent. The Respondent argues that the Officer reasonably concluded that the Applicant had not rebutted the presumption of state protection, had not established that the individuals allegedly seeking him were members of the [NAME_5] or that they continued to have an interest in him, and had not demonstrated a personalized risk upon return to Mexico. The Respondent further submits that the Officer reasonably found that the Applicant had not shown that relocation to Mérida, Yucatán would be unsafe or unreasonable and that the Decision falls within the range of acceptable outcomes supported by the evidentiary record. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, this application is granted.

II. Background [ 5 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Mexico from Saltillo, Coahuila. He entered Canada on January 28, 2018, as a visitor and remained in Canada after the expiry of his temporary resident status in July 2019. On November 22, 2022, the Applicant became subject to an Exclusion Order. [ 6 ] The Applicant was invited to submit a PRRA which he submitted in December 2022. A negative decision was issued on March 10, 2023. Following the [NAME_7], Canada Border Services Agency ( “[NAME_8]” ) scheduled the Applicant’s removal for May 3, 2023. [ 7 ] The Applicant filed a motion for stay of removal and an application for legal and judicial review ( “ALJR” ) of that decision. On May 2, 2023, the Respondent consented to both the motion for a stay and the ALJR. The PRRA was submitted to [NAME_4] for redetermination by a different officer. [ 8 ] The Applicant attempted to file a refugee claim on April 24, 2023. This claim was cancelled on January 3, 2024, pursuant to section 99(3) of the IRPA , which prohibits refugee claims by persons subject to removal orders. [ 9 ] On December 30, 2024 the Officer refused the Applicant’s application. The Decision was communicated to the Applicant on January 15, 2025. [ 10 ] The Applicant filed the present ALJR of the [NAME_7] on January 21, 2025. [ 11 ] The Applicant claims that on December 20, 2017, while working at a construction site in Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo, he witnessed two-armed men execute an elderly man. He states that the perpetrators observed him and fired shots in his direction as he fled the scene. [ 12 ] The Applicant reported what he witnessed to police, whom he happened upon while fleeing. The Applicant claims one officer attended the construction site and the other officer took his account of the event at a restaurant. The Applicant did not give a formal statement or report to police. The officers drove him home and advised him that he was not in danger. They advised him he could file an official report. [ 13 ] The Applicant alleges that the individuals involved in the incident were members of the [NAME_5] (the “[NAME_5]” ) and that, following the event, [NAME_5] sought to locate him. [ 14 ] The Applicant states that he left Playa del Carmen shortly after the incident and relocated to Chelem, Yucatán, via Mérida, where he remained for a brief period before obtaining a Canadian visitor visa and travelling to Canada approximately one month after the alleged events.

III. Issues [ 15 ] The issues before the Court are: a) Whether the Officer's Decision refusing the Applicant's PRRA application is reasonable; and b) Whether the Applicant was denied procedural fairness, particularly in relation to the Officer's assessment of the availability of an internal flight alternative ( “IFA” ).

IV. Standard of Review [ 16 ] The parties submit, and I agree, that the standard of review applicable to the Decision in this case is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at paras 25, 86). [ 17 ] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified ( Vavilov at paras 12–15, 95). The starting point for a reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Vavilov at para 85). [ 18 ] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 100). [ 19 ] Breaches of procedural fairness are reviewable on a correctness standard. The standard of review for procedural fairness issues is correctness, or akin to correctness ( Vavilov at para 53; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 [ CPR ] at paras 54–56). [ADDRESS] must consider what level of procedural fairness is necessary in the circumstances and whether the “procedure followed by the decision maker respects the standards of fairness and natural justice” ( [NAME_9] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 733 at para 13).

V. Analysis A. Reasonableness [ 20 ] The Applicant argued that the Decision was not reasonable because the Officer failed to properly grapple with the evidence concerning the availability of state protection, ongoing risks from [NAME_5], and evidence concerning his mental health. [ 21 ] The Respondent argued that the Decision was reasonable and was based on a proper application of the facts and legal framework. The Respondent argued that the Applicant’s arguments are an invitation for this Court to reassess the evidence and reach a different conclusion, which is not the proper role of a Court on judicial review. [ 22 ] To be considered a Convention refugee or person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA , an applicant must establish that they face “more than a mere possibility” of persecution. This must be established with “clear and convincing evidence” that illustrates that the state cannot protect its citizens on a balance of probabilities; Canada (Attorney General) v Ward , [1993] 2 SCR 689 at 724-726. [ 23 ] [ADDRESS] has clarified that state protection should be evaluated with a view to its effectiveness as the operational level; [NAME_9] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 337 at paras 71-72. B. Available State Protection [ 24 ] The Applicant argues that there was clear country condition evidence before the Officer that supported the basis of his claim for protection and contradicted the Officer’s conclusion that state protection was reasonably available. [ 25 ] Specifically, the Applicant pointed to the country condition evidence that he presented in support of his PRRA that highlighted that organized criminal organizations act with impunity throughout Mexico and they often collude with federal, state, and local officials. The Applicant also noted that this same evidence highlighted that victims of crime rarely report incidents to police due to the influence organized criminal groups have over police and state officials. [ 26 ] The Applicant provided evidence in support of his PRRA; that he had approached the police immediately after witnessing the murder. The Applicant claims that the officer he spoke with did not take notes of the event, and that the other officer, who went to the scene, claimed that there was no evidence of criminal activity having taken place. The officers assured him that he was safe and they advised him he was free to submit a formal report. [ 27 ] In the Decision, the Officer notes that while the Applicant gave evidence that the officers whom he engaged with following the event did not take his statement, there was no evidence of “other avenues that the Applicant” took to report the event or to have it investigated. The Officer noted that there was no evidence that he went to a police station to file a formal complaint, nor did the Applicant take any steps to follow up on the status of the investigation or to report the identity of one of the shooters, who was a well-known [NAME_5] member. [ 28 ] I accept that the Applicant believes that the police were working in collusion with the [NAME_5] and that he was at risk. However, I am persuaded by the Respondent that it was open to the Officer to find that the Applicant had not demonstrated with “clear and convincing evidence” that state protection would not be available, had it been sought out. The Applicant’s belief must be tethered to some evidence – assumptions and inferences are simply not enough. The Applicant pointed to country condition evidence and a newspaper article about a [NAME_5] member he says was involved in the murder he witnessed. But there is no evidence to support the belief, not withstanding how strongly held it appears to be. The Applicant did not point to specific evidence that clearly identifies the perpetrators of the crime he witnessed, nor did he point to specific evidence that illustrated that he would not have received assistance from the police. [ 29 ] I am persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant’s narrative and evidence do not explain how the officers who met with him took him safely home and invited him to make a formal complaint were corrupt or working in collusion with the [NAME_5]. C. Risks From [NAME_5] [ 30 ] The Applicant submitted evidence that, immediately after the police drove him home in Playa del Carmen after he reported the incident, he began to question his decision. He then fled his home and traveled to Mérida, Yucatán, where he stayed briefly before moving to Chelem, where he remained until receiving a Temporary Resident Visa ( “TRV” ) to travel to Canada. [ 31 ] The Applicant submitted letters from family members and a former roommate. This evidence indicates that unknown individuals attended at or near the Applicant’s former residence in Playa del Carmen and at his family’s residence in Saltillo, Coahuila, asking about his whereabouts. The Applicant’s mother also indicated that she temporarily left her residence due to safety concerns. The Applicant relies on this evidence to support his claim that he continues to be sought by individuals associated with organized crime. [ 32 ] The Applicant also submitted country condition documentation regarding organized crime and police corruption in Mexico, including materials describing [NAME_5] violence and alleged infiltration of law enforcement by criminal organizations. The documentation also describes regional variation in levels of violence within Mexico, including references to certain states, including Yucatán, as having comparatively lower levels of violence, while noting that organized criminal activity remains present across the country. [ 33 ] The Officer found that there was insufficient objective evidence that established that the [NAME_5] or any other gang members were looking for the Applicant. The Officer clearly considers the evidence submitted by the Applicant noting that “[T]he letters do not clearly identify who the men were and/or that they were seeking the applicants whereabouts for the purpose of harming him.” The Officer goes on to note that a long time had passed since the incident and there was insufficient evidence that family members who continue to reside in Mexico have been pursued by the [NAME_5]. The Officer found that the evidence was “vague” in terms of the details and the timeline. [ 34 ] The Officer found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the men who were allegedly looking for the Applicant were members of the [NAME_5], or any other [NAME_5], and that they had a particular ongoing interest in the Applicant. The Officer noted that there was insufficient evidence that the Applicant or his family had been contacted by the [NAME_5]. [ 35 ] Accordingly, the Officer found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a forward-facing risk to the Applicant from the [NAME_5]. [ 36 ] A review of the Decision confirms that the Officer considered the country condition evidence. The Officer noted that while the “documentary evidence shows widespread and generalized violence” , that this was not sufficient to meet the test for a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA . The Officer goes on to “acknowledge that organised crime is a serious issue in Mexico.” However, based on the totality of the submissions, the Officer found that there was insufficient evidence that the Applicant was being sought by members of the [NAME_5] and was a person in need of protection. [ 37 ] I am persuaded that the Applicant failed to provide evidence that established that the [NAME_5] were after him and if they were that they were still motivated to find him and that [NAME_5] had been pursing him since he left Mexico. It was open to the Officer to find that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the [NAME_5] were pursuing the Applicant or that he has a forward-facing risk from the [NAME_5]. [ 38 ] The Applicant has not demonstrated an error that would warrant this Court’s intervention. Rather, the Applicant invites this Court to reweigh the evidence and reach a different conclusion; this is not the proper role of a Court on judicial review. [NAME_10] [ 39 ] The Applicant argues that he provided “unequivocal evidence that it would be unreasonable and unduly harsh for the Applicant to be expected to relocate anywhere else in Mexico” . In support of this position, the Applicant pointed to the country condition evidence and a report from a psychologist, [NAME_10], dated July 19, 2023. [ 40 ] The Respondent argues that the psychologist report was addressed by the Officer in a succinct manner, and that this was reasonable in the circumstances. The Respondent notes that the report: - Is based on one meeting with the Applicant on May 25, 2023, following a referral from counsel on July 12, 2023; - Does not highlight any mental health care the Applicant was engaged in between 2018 and the commencement of removal proceedings in 2023; - Does not identify any potential treatment or further psychological care; - Declares that the Applicant cannot return to any region of Mexico due to his PTSD; - Opines that if the Applicant returns to Mexico, he is at substantial risk of decompensation, comorbidity of major depressive disorder, and more serious PTSD. [ 41 ] The Respondent argues that this Court has held that it is reasonable for officers to approach reports prepared in an anticipation of removal with caution and to assign such reports minimal weight; [NAME_9] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 293 at para 15; [NAME_11] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2020 FC 231 at paras 74–84; [NAME_9] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration ), 2023 FC 207 at para 20. [ 42 ] A review of the report indicates that [NAME_10] was provided documents from Counsel for the Applicant, including the “Federal Court Applications and Order” . [NAME_10] notes at several points in the report that he has not been “compromised by any requirement to advocate” for the Applicant and points out that his report is objective and evidence based. [NAME_10] concludes that: “in any return scenario – i.e., any return to any region of Mexico – he would significantly decompensate into more severe mental illness than at present.” “Stated simply and differently, the best available data support a prognosis for a more severe mental illness in a return.” [NAME_10] goes on to state: “when fear and trauma memories are primary contributing factors, the research indicates clearly that affective disorders do not recede with simple, even rational, reassurances or targeted psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy unless the individual feels safe.” [ 43 ] [ADDRESS] has raised concerns with the practice of applicants providing reports prepared by experts based on a single meeting in support of immigration proceedings in the absence of a history of mental health issues and treatment; [NAME_9] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 461 at para 33. [ 44 ] The report from [NAME_10] contains the same kind of categorical statements that this Court has found to constitute impermissible overreach and advocacy on behalf of an applicant: [redacted] [ 45 ] It was open to the Officer in this circumstance to treat this evidence with caution. With respect, [NAME_10]’s report blurs the line between a report by a health care professional and an advocate. The Officer does not disregard this evidence, rather the Officer recognised that the Applicant is suffering from PTSD and he accepted that the Applicant’s mental health may deteriorate on return to Mexico. However, the Officer also found that returning to the Yucatán would be reasonable. The Officer found that the report from [NAME_10], was not sufficient to demonstrate that the Applicant would face a risk of torture or risk of cruel and unusual treatment. [ 46 ] The Applicant has not persuaded the Court that the Officer erred in their treatment of [NAME_10]’s report. E. Procedural Fairness [ 47 ] The Applicant claims the Officer breached his right to procedural fairness by not identifying the IFA and failing to provide him an opportunity to respond. The Applicant also argues that the Officer’s finding of an IFA was otherwise unreasonable. [ 48 ] The Applicant argues that the finding that there was a viable IFA ignored the psychological evidence that concluded that there was no safe place for the Applicant to return to in Mexico. However, I have found that it was reasonable for the Officer to treat this evidence with caution, as the report has crossed the line into an improper advocacy piece. [ 49 ] The Applicant also argues that the Decision was unreasonable because the Officer erroneously stated that the Applicant was familiar with Mérida and the Yucatán state. [ 50 ] The Respondent argues that the Officer did not make an IFA determination, rather the Officer’s reasons were responding to the Applicant’s submissions that pre-emptively asserted that there was no safe alternative anywhere in Mexico due to widespread [NAME_5] activity and police corruption. Further, the Respondent argues that the Applicant gave evidence that illustrated that this was a region that he had familiarity with, contrary to the Applicant’s submissions. [ 51 ] The Decision states: “While Counsel submitted that the applicant would not be safe in any part of Mexico, I do not agree with this statement.” The Officer goes on to consider open-source information in the National Documentation Package ( “NDP” ) that considers the situation in the Yucatán region; in particular, Mérida. While the information reviewed by the Officer indicates that this region is not immune from crime, the reports highlight that this is one of the safest states in Mexico. The Officer highlights reports that indicate that residents enjoy security, that reports of extortion and bribery by state and municipal police is rare, and crime attributed to criminal groups is low. [ 52 ] The Officer concludes that “the applicant has not provided any evidence to establish why he would be unable to safely relocate to Merida, Yucatan.” The Applicant argues that this conclusion is unreasonable as he was only in the Mérida area for a short time after fleeing Playa del Carmen. [ 53 ] The Officer does not indicate that Mérida is a viable IFA. Rather, the Officer states “After conducting a risk assessment, I find that the applicant could reasonably return to Yucatan, Mexico – an area where he is familiar with the place, language, and environment.” I note that the Officer does not engage with the well-established two-part test for assessing an IFA set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in [NAME_12] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), [1992] 1 FC 706, 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA). [ 54 ] A review of the record illustrates that in support of his PRRA, the Applicant made submissions on the issue of an unspecified IFA – the Applicant argued, based on the totality of the country condition evidence and objective evidence that the Applicant was targeted by members of the [NAME_5], that “it would be unduly harsh to expect [NAME_2] to live in any region of Mexico.” [ 55 ] I am persuaded by the Applicant that effectively, the Officer’s Decision amounts to a finding of an IFA. [ 56 ] In [NAME_9] v Canada (minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 31, this Court found that where a PRRA officer examines an IFA in a new or previously unconsidered location without notice, this is a breach of procedural fairness; [NAME_9] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 1224 at para 17. [ 57 ] I agree with the Respondent, Mérida is not an unknown location to the Applicant. I also agree that the Applicant’s PRRA submissions appear to have put the issue of any possible IFA into issue. However, the Officer did not provide notice that he was considering an IFA, nor was the Applicant provide an opportunity to respond to this.

Accordingly, the Officer breached the Applicant’s right of procedural fairness.

VI. Conclusion [ 58 ] The Decision is reasonable, the Officer provides transparent, intelligible and justified reasons for finding that the Applicant had provided insufficient evidence to establish that he satisfied that he was a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA. [ 59 ] However, the Applicant has demonstrated that there has been a breach of procedural fairness. [ 60 ] The parties did not pose questions for certification, and I agree that there are none.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1801-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. The Applicant’s PRRA application shall be resubmitted to [NAME_4] for consideration by a new officer. No question is certified. "[NAME_1]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1801-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME_3] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: June 4, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME_1] J. DATED: July 6, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME_13] For The Applicant [NAME_14] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME_13] and Solicitors Calgary, Alberta For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Calgary, Alberta For The Respondent