Federal Court Upholds Decision on Refugee Protection Application
📌 In brief
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review, upholding the decision that the applicant had an internal flight alternative in Mérida, Mexico. The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to overturn the decision.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Refugee Appeal Division's decision that the applicant had an internal flight alternative in Mérida, Mexico, was reasonable.
📖 What the law says
This rule explains that if you want the Federal Court to review a decision made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, you must first ask the Court for permission. You cannot make this application until you have used up any right to appeal that might be available under the Act.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review challenging the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division that the applicant had an internal flight alternative in Mérida, Mexico.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260408 Docket: IMM-15338-23 Citation: 2026 FC 459 Toronto, Ontario, April 8, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
JUDGMENT AND
REASONS (delivered orally from the bench on April 8, 2026) [ 1 ] The Applicant’s claim for refugee protection was refused by the Refugee Protection Division ([NAME]), and the Refugee Appeal Division ([NAME]) upheld that decision. This application for judicial review challenges the [NAME]’s decision. [ 2 ] The [NAME] found that the Applicant had an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mérida, Mexico. The first prong of the IFA test requires no serious possibility of persecution in the location of the IFA ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 799 at para 8), and the [NAME] found that the Applicant’s feared persecutors would not be motivated to locate and harm him in Merida. [ 3 ] The Applicant argues that his history of harm from his feared persecutors should establish their motivation to find him. However, this argument invites the Court to reweigh the evidence and come to its own conclusion, which is not the role of a Court on judicial review ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 125-126). The [NAME] found that the Applicant adduced no evidence to establish that he would be pursued and further found, based on the Applicant’s testimony, that the Applicant’s family in Mexico was neither approached nor contacted by the alleged persecutors. These are reasonable findings based on the record ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 7 at paras 37-38). [ 4 ] The [NAME] reasonably found the second prong of the IFA test to be satisfied after reviewing the Applicant’s personal circumstances. The Applicant asserts that the [NAME] unreasonably required him to live in hiding in the IFA, however the [NAME] made no such finding. The [NAME] in fact found no risk at all in the proposed IFA. [ 5 ] The balance of the Applicant’s submissions are bare assertions of unsubstantiated errors in the decision. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable, and the application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGMENT in IMM-15338-23 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-15338-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:
HELD BY WAY OF ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 8, 2026
JUDGMENT AND
REASONS: [NAME] J. DATED: APRIL 8, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Mississauga, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tribunal found no serious possibility of persecution for the claimant in Mérida, Mexico.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's feared persecutors would not be motivated to locate and harm him in Merida.
- The tribunal found that the claimant provided no evidence to show he would be pursued in the internal flight alternative.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's family in Mexico was not contacted by the alleged persecutors.
- The tribunal found that the second part of the internal flight alternative test was met after reviewing the claimant's personal situation.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant's argument that his past harm should prove the persecutors' motivation was an attempt to reweigh evidence.
- The claimant's assertion that the tribunal required him to live in hiding in the internal flight alternative was incorrect.
- The claimant's remaining arguments were simply unsupported claims of errors in the decision.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the decision of the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the applicant had an internal flight alternative in Mérida, Mexico.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the applicant had an internal flight alternative in Mérida, Mexico, as the evidence showed that the applicant's feared persecutors would not pursue him there.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 72, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the applicant had provided insufficient evidence to show that he would be pursued in Mérida, Mexico.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may need to provide strong evidence to show that they would be persecuted in the proposed internal flight alternative.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included the applicant's testimony and the lack of contact between the applicant's family and the alleged persecutors.