Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Challenge to IFA Decision

Date: 20240423 Docket: IMM-9293-25 Citation: 2026 FC 529 Ottawa, Ontario, April 23, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Conroy BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicants are citizens of Mexico. They seek judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] that was rendered on March 31, 2025. [NAME] upheld the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] rejecting the Applicants’ claim for refugee protection. The determinative issue was the existence of a viable Internal Flight Alternative [IFA] in Merida, Mexico. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, the judicial review is dismissed. [ 3 ] While I have no reason to doubt that the Applicants genuinely fear [NAME] [[NAME]], they have not established that [NAME]’s decision was unreasonable.

I. MATERIAL FACTS LEADING TO THIS APPLICATION [ 4 ] The following is a summary based on the Applicants’ basis of claim forms. There was no suggestion by [NAME] or the RPD that the Applicants lacked credibility. [ 5 ] The Applicants, a common-law couple, both previously worked for a government transportation department in their hometown in Mexico. [ 6 ] The [NAME] began targeting the [NAME] Applicant after the Transportation Department and the police carried out a highway operation in March of 2023. The [NAME] Applicant worked on this operation. The operation resulted in the discovery and seizure of weapons and drugs in vehicles operating as Ubers and taxis. The drivers of these vehicles orchestrated a highway blockade with other taxi and Uber drivers, which surrounded the authorities, including the [NAME] Applicant. Eventually, the authorities managed to de-escalate the blockade. [ 7 ] In April 2023, the [NAME] Applicant started noticing suspicious cars parked in front of the home he shared with [NAME]. [ 8 ] In May 2023, several armed men who identified themselves as members of the [NAME], followed him and then forced him out of his car. They held a gun to his head and said they knew [NAME] worked with him at Transportation Department, and that they knew he was involved in the highway operation. They demanded that he and [NAME] work for the [NAME] within the department. He was told they would kill both of them if either refused to comply. They also told him that he had to pay for the lost “merchandise”, which he understood to mean the drugs seized by the police during the highway operation. The men told the [NAME] Applicant that the police worked for the [NAME]. The [NAME] Applicant recognized one of the armed men as a police officer who worked on the highway operation with him. They beat the [NAME] Applicant, confiscated his identification and forced him to share his family’s contact information stored in his phone. [ 9 ] Thereafter, the Applicants describe being stalked to the extent that they put significant limits on leaving their home. The Applicants eventually moved in with a family member that lived in a gated community. [ 10 ] The [NAME] Applicant fled for Canada in June of 2023. [ 11 ] In July 2023, [NAME]’s car was surrounded by two trucks. Nine masked men emerged with large guns, demanding to know where the [NAME] Applicant was. She told them she did not know. The men told her that if she didn’t cooperate with them at the Transportation Department, they would kill her, the [NAME] Applicant, and her whole family. The men banged on her car and shot guns in the air. The men told her she would not be given a second chance to comply. [ 12 ] [NAME] fled to Canada in August of 2023. [ 13 ] Each of the Applicants claimed refugee protection at the airport upon landing in Canada. A. RPD Decision [ 14 ] The RPD found that the determinative issue was the existence of an IFA in Merida, Yucatan. [ 15 ] Regarding the first prong of the IFA test, the RPD found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the [NAME] are actively seeking the Applicants. It noted: …that the [NAME] testified that the [NAME] possess the claimants' personal details, photos of personal contacts, and have the power and connections to locate them, however, they have made no effort to approach the claimants’ relatives, even though the claimants were, at one point, living in [a family member’s] home. The panel notes that if a [NAME] in Mexico wishes to locate a target, it has the capacity to do so. However, there must be clear evidence of motivation on the part of the [NAME] to actively seek out the claimants and harm them in the proposed IFA location. In this case, the panel finds insufficient evidence to establish that the [NAME] in question is the [NAME] or that they are motivated to locate and harm the claimants in the IFA location. [ 16 ] Regarding the second prong of the IFA test, the RPD referenced the “very high threshold” to establish that an IFA is unreasonable. The Applicants testified that, in addition to their fear that the [NAME] would find them in Merida, they cannot move to Merida because there are limited employment opportunities and it has a high cost of living. The PRD considered these explanations, the Applicants’ work experience, and the objective evidence and found that the Applicants should be able to find employment in the IFA. The RPD also considered that both Applicants speak Spanish, the predominant language in the IFA, and that Merida is in one of the “safest areas in Mexico and has effective legal governance.” [ 17 ] Overall, the RPD found that “the claimants do not face a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in Merida.” B. Decision Under Review - RAD [ 18 ] [NAME] agreed with the RPD and found that the existence of a viable IFA was the determinative issue. [ 19 ] Regarding the first prong of the IFA test, [NAME] acknowledged that the [NAME] has the means to find the Applicants in the IFA. However, it went on to explain that the “[NAME]’s means to find the Appellants is not enough to establish that there is a risk of harm in the proposed IFA” and “the fact the [NAME] operates throughout Mexico speaks to the [NAME]’s capacity to track the Appellants, not their motivation to do so.” [NAME] stated that “[w]hile the general country condition evidence refers to the fact that cartels might be motivated to pursue individuals that defy their orders, who are subject to a personal vendetta or who lose them money, the specific facts in the Appellants’ circumstances do not support that the [NAME] is motivated to pursue the Appellants for those reasons.” [ 20 ] [NAME] relied on the following to conclude the [NAME] lacked the motivation to pursue the Applicants in the IFA: None of the Applicants family members had been approached by the [NAME]. An absence of contact with Applicants’ co-workers. While the [NAME] Applicant testified that he knew of two of his co-workers that were approached by the [NAME], this was “given little weight” because he testified that he could not provide any details of those alleged incidents. The Applicants’ profile would change if they moved to the IFA as they would no longer be working for the Transportation Department and therefore would not be seen by the CJNC as valuable to collaborate with. Merida is a city of about 1 million residents and is located more than 1500 kms from the Applicants’ hometown. The significant passage of time: it had been about two years since the Applicants last heard from the [NAME]. [ 21 ] Regarding the second prong of the IFA test, [NAME] considered the Applicants’ submissions that the IFA was unreasonable because of their lack of finances, limited employment opportunities and an absence of social support networks. Overall, [NAME] concluded that the Applicants had not established that these circumstances would jeopardize their lives or safety in relocating to Merida. [NAME] said that the fact that the Applicants “may face some hardship in relocating to the proposed IFA, including some difficulty in finding new work or housing, is not a basis for attaining refugee protection in Canada.” [ 22 ] [NAME] also considered the argument that the RPD overlooked that being a woman will limit [NAME]’s ability to access employment, healthcare, and essential services and that there is a pervasive culture of abuse, domestic violence, and harassment against women and most incidents go unreported due to the widespread belief that the authorities will not respond. [NAME] considered the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the [NAME] and concluded that [NAME] failed to demonstrate she faces more than “a mere possibility of persecution.” II. ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW [ 23 ] The Applicant raises the following issues: a) Was [NAME] reasonable in concluding that [NAME] lacked the motivation to locate the Applicants in the IFA? b) Was [NAME] reasonable in concluding that the IFA was objectively reasonable? [ 24 ] The parties agree, as do I, that the standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov , [2019] 4 SCR 653 [[NAME]].

III. ANALYSIS A. IFA – First Principles [ 25 ] Refugee protection is only available when a person cannot find protection anywhere in their country of origin: Canada (Attorney General) v Ward , 1993 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 689, at 709. If a claimant can safely and reasonably relocate within their country of origin, they are expected to do so rather than seek refugee protection in Canada: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 799 [ [NAME] ] at para 7. If they are safe in certain parts of their home country, they are said to have an internal flight alternative or IFA: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 1098 at para 14. The existence of a viable IFA in the claimant’s country of origin will negate a claim for refugee protection regardless of the merits of the other aspects of their refugee claim: [NAME] at para 7. [ 26 ] An IFA will exist where: 1) the claimant will not be subject to a serious possibility of persecution nor to a risk of harm under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 in the proposed IFA location; and, 2) it would not be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek refuge there, taking into account all the circumstances ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA) at 709-710; [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589 [ [NAME] ] at 595–97; [NAME] at para 8; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 910 at para 15). [ 27 ] Once a potential IFA is identified by the RPD or RAD, the refugee claimant bears the onus of establishing that it is not viable: [NAME] at 594-595. To rebut the viability of an identified IFA, a claimant must satisfy [NAME], on a balance of probabilities, that at least one of the prongs of the IFA test is not met: [NAME] v Canada , 2022 FC 1777 at para 22. [ 28 ] To succeed on the first prong of the IFA test, a claimant must establish with objective evidence that the [NAME] have both the means and the motivation to find them in the IFA and cause them harm: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 996 at para 8. This involves a prospective analysis, and it is considered from the perspective of the [NAME], not from the claimant’s perspective: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 81 at para 21 [ [NAME] ]. [ 29 ] On the second prong, the threshold to establish that an IFA is unreasonable is very high. It requires “actual and concrete evidence” of conditions that would jeopardize the applicant’s life and safety: [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164 [ [NAME] ] at para 15. B. Assessment of Motivation was Reasonable [ 30 ] The Applicants submit that [NAME] was unreasonable in finding that the [NAME] lacked the motivation to find them in Merida. [ 31 ] First, they argue that [NAME] erred in relying on the absence of [NAME] contact with the Applicants’ family members. They submit that the case law confirms that a lack of contact by the [NAME] is not determinative of motivation, citing [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 810 [ [NAME] ] at para 75 and [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 4 at para 17 [ [NAME] ]. [ 32 ] [NAME] and [NAME] stand for no such general legal proposition. Indeed a number of cases have found that it is reasonable for [NAME] to consider whether the agent of persecution has contacted a claimant’s family in assessing ongoing motivation: see for example, [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1948 at para 27, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 427, para 16; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1633 at para 27; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1058 at para 28; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1021 at para 10; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1071, para 14; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 428 at para 16. [ 33 ] Ultimately, the assessment of motivation is fact-specific and considers many factors “including, among others: the reason the claimants were initially targeted, the steps the [NAME] have taken, the length of time that has passed without contact, and the relationship the [NAME] have to the applicants” : [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 561 at para 7. [ 34 ] In the present case, [NAME] listed several factors to support its conclusion. One of which was the absence of contact between [NAME] and the Applicants’ family members who still reside in the Applicants’ hometown. It is not disputed that there has been no such contact. This is a relevant consideration in determining forward-looking motivation and there was nothing unreasonable about [NAME]’s reliance on this fact. [ 35 ] Second, I have considered [NAME]’s treatment of the evidence about the [NAME]’s contact with the Applicants’ former co-workers. On this point, [NAME] stated: There has also been an absence of contact with the Appellants’ former co-workers in an attempt to locate the Appellants. The [NAME] testified that none of her coworkers were approached by the [NAME]. The [NAME]’s testimony that two friends were approached is of little weight given that, as the [NAME] testified, he cannot provide details of those alleged incidents. [ 36 ] I am not persuaded that the statement above was a veiled credibility finding. Having reviewed the RPD transcript, the [NAME] Applicant was forthright in stating he could not provide details about contacts by the [NAME] with his coworkers because these coworkers didn’t want to share any information with him and wanted nothing to do with him. [ 37 ] [NAME]’s comment that there has been an absence of contact with the Applicants’ co-workers is arguably an overstatement. As acknowledged by [NAME] in the same paragraph, there was in fact some evidence of [NAME] contact with co-workers, but given the lack of detail, [NAME] gave this evidence little weight. Reading this paragraph as a whole, along with the reasons, I am not satisfied that the imprecise wording in the first sentence of [NAME] paragraph quoted above is sufficiently central to the overall conclusion to render its decision unreasonable: [NAME] at para 100. [ 38 ] Relatedly, the Applicants argued that [NAME] was wrong to dismiss the evidence of [NAME] contact with coworkers as it demonstrates motivation. This is effectively an invitation for me to reweigh the evidence, which is not the court’s role on judicial review: [NAME] at para 125. [NAME] was entitled to assign little weight to this information and explained its rationale for doing so. [ 39 ] Third, the Applicants make many of the same arguments before me that were made before [NAME] including that they are at high-risk because they refused to collaborate with the [NAME] and that the [NAME] held the [NAME] Applicant personally responsible for losses resulting from the highway operation. [NAME] considered these arguments but was not persuaded that the specific facts supported a conclusion that the [NAME] was motivated to locate the Applicants in Merida. [NAME] enumerated several factors to support its conclusion. Again, absent exceptional circumstances, it is not for a judicial review court to reweigh and reassess the evidence that was before [NAME]: [NAME] at para 125. C. Assessment of reasonableness of the IFA [ 40 ] On the second prong of the IFA test, the Applicants submit that it was objectively unreasonable for [NAME] to conclude that the Applicants could travel to and live in the IFA without risking their lives and safety. [ 41 ] The Applicants have not identified a reviewable error in [NAME]’s assessment of the reasonableness of the IFA. [NAME] considered the arguments and personal circumstances of the Applicants and addressed them in its reasons. As required by the case law, [NAME] considered that there was no “actual and concrete evidence” evidence that the Applicants would be unable to find employment or accommodation in Merida: [NAME] at para 15. An IFA is no unreasonable simply because a claimant lacks family support in the area or may have difficulty finding suitable employment: [NAME] at 598 . [ 42 ] Finally, there is no merit to the Applicants’ assertion that [NAME] failed to consider the profile of [NAME] as a woman. [NAME] expressly considered this issue and concluded that she failed to show how the general country condition evidence on the treatment of women in Mexico was specific to her such that she faces more than a mere possibility of persecution.

IV.

CONCLUSION [ 43 ] [NAME]’s reasons reflect an analysis that is transparent, justifiable and intelligible, and is not tainted by any reviewable error. The judicial review is therefore dismissed. [ 44 ] No question for certification was proposed and none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9292-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "Meaghan M. Conroy" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-9293-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Held by way of videoconference DATE OF HEARING: April 9, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: CONROY J. DATED: april 23, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY] and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent