Federal Court Upholds RAD Decision on Refugee Protection Claim

Date: 20260409 Docket: IMM-8368-25 Citation: 2026 FC 473 Ottawa, Ontario, April 9, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], made a claim for refugee protection in Canada. The Refugee Protection Division ( “[NAME]” ) refused the claim. [NAME] appealed. The Refugee Appeal Division ( “RAD” ), like the [NAME], found that [NAME] had a viable internal flight alternative ( “IFA” ) in Mexico. [ 2 ] [NAME] challenges the RAD’s decision on judicial review. He argues that the RAD failed to consider the context and evidence when it found that the two threatening incidents in 2017 and 2021 were not connected to one another. Further, [NAME] argues that the RAD erred in its assessment of the second prong of the IFA test – namely, whether it was reasonable for him to relocate to the proposed IFA. [ 3 ] The parties agree, as do I, that the challenge is to the merits of the RAD’s decision and not its procedure and therefore I will review the decision on a reasonableness standard ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65). [ 4 ] The RAD rejected the [NAME]’s credibility assessments and found [NAME] to be a credible witness. The RAD, like the [NAME], found the determinative issue to be the availability of an IFA. [ 5 ] I am not convinced that [NAME] has raised a sufficiently serious shortcoming in the RAD’s decision to warrant the Court’s intervention. Many of the arguments are based on general assertions that are not explained in relation to the facts of [NAME]’ case. [ 6 ] On the issue of the RAD not considering the evidence, I cannot agree. The RAD considered the evidence of the 2017 and 2021 incidents, which both took place in [NAME]’ hometown. The RAD found that there was insufficient evidence that these two events were connected to each other, that the agent of persecution were cartel members, or that they were pursuing [NAME] because of their interest in his uncle. [ 7 ] [NAME] asserts that the RAD dismissed the evidence that he relocated within Mexico “unsuccessfully” . The RAD references that [NAME] relocated and returned to his hometown following both the 2017 and 2021 incidents. It is not clear why [NAME] is arguing the relocation was “unsuccessful” ; he is not claiming that any relevant incidents occurred during the four-year period he lived outside of his hometown. The second incident happened some time after he had moved back to his hometown. [ 8 ] With respect to the RAD’s assessment of the second prong of the IFA test and whether [NAME] could reasonably relocate, [NAME] argues that the RAD ought to have considered that he was a young person with trauma. This is not a submission that was made to the RAD, nor was there evidence before the RAD on this point. [ 9 ] [NAME] also claims that the RAD ought not to have drawn a negative inference because of his delay in making a claim for refugee protection in Canada. The RAD did not do this; the RAD stated: “I do not draw a negative credibility inference from the delay in claiming.” [ 10 ] Overall, I find the RAD’s decision is intelligible, transparent and justified. I am not persuaded that [NAME] has raised any sufficiently serious shortcoming with the decision. Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-8368-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that :

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed; and 2. No serious question of general importance is certified. blank "Lobat Sadrehashemi" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-8368-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 26, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: SADREHASHEMI J.. DATED: APRIL 9, 2026 APPEARANCE : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario For The APPLICANT [NAME] Department of Justice Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent