Federal Court Rejects Claim of No Safe Internal Flight Alternative in Mexico

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260527 Docket: IMM-22187-24 Citation: 2026 FC 686 Toronto, Ontario, May 27, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT (delivered orally from the bench on May 27, 2026) [ 1 ] In this judicial review application, the Applicant challenges the denial of his appeal by the Refugee Appeal Division ([NAME]). The [NAME] upheld the finding of the Refugee Protection Division ([NAME]) that the Applicant has an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mérida, Mexico. [ 2 ] Both the [NAME] and the [NAME] determined that the Applicant’s feared agent of persecution, the [NAME] ([NAME]), on a balance of probabilities was not motivated to pursue him and harm him in Mérida more than seven years after their last physical interaction. [ 3 ] The Applicant clearly disagrees with the [NAME]’s assessment, but has not identified any basis to doubt the reasonableness of that assessment. The Applicant relies heavily on evidence of his brother’s continued extortion by the [NAME] in Mexico, but the [NAME] found no evidence that the extortion was connected to the Applicant. As the [NAME] stated: “However, there is no evidence that the [NAME] are seeking the Appellant for financial retribution. The Appellant was released from his kidnapping by promising to end his relationship. The Appellant obeyed. There is no evidence the [NAME] is seeking vengeance or financial debt from the Appellant today. Though his brother’s business is being extorted, there is no evidence this is related to a debt owed by the Appellant.” [ 4 ] The Applicant argues that the [NAME] overlooked his risk of extortion as a returnee to Mexico, but the specific item of documentary evidence relied upon by the Applicant to support this argument was not placed before the Court ( [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2025 FC 1943 at 41). In any case, this argument was not advanced before the [NAME]. [ 5 ] Ultimately, the [NAME] reasonably found no objective basis for the Applicant to fear returning to Mérida, which satisfied the first prong of the IFA test. The Applicant has not challenged the [NAME]’s determination on the second prong of the IFA test that it would be reasonable for him to return there. As such, the decision is reasonable and the application for judicial review is dismissed.

JUDGMENT in IMM-22187-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification and no order regarding costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-22187-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: held by way of zoom VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: MAY 27, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: MAY 27, 2026 APPEARANCES : [COUNSEL] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of [RESPONDENT], Ontario For The Respondent