Federal Court Upholds RAD's Decision on Internal Flight Alternative

Date: 20260428 Docket: IMM-20428-24 Citation: 2026 FC 560 Ottawa, Ontario, April 28, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicants, [NAME] [Principal Applicant] and her four children are citizens of Mexico. They entered Canada in November 2022 and claimed refugee protection in September 2023. The Principal Applicant claims that she unsuccessfully ran as a candidate for mayor of Pijijiapan, Chiapas in 2018. During her campaign, the Jalisco Nueva Generacion Cartel [CJNG] threatened her. After the campaign the CJNG continued to extort and threaten the Applicants and assaulted the Principal Applicant’s spouse. The Applicants claim that their lives remain at risk from the CJNG if they are returned to Mexico. [ 2 ] The Refugee Protection Division [RPD] accepted that the Applicants’ allegations were true, on a balance of probabilities, but found that the determinative issue was that they had a viable internal flight alterative [IFA] in Merida, Yucatan. The RPD accepted that the CJNG has the means to locate the Applicants in the IFA but, given the Principal Applicant’s profile, testimony and the objective evidence, found it was speculative to assert that the CJNG would have the motivation to do so. [ 3 ] On appeal, the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] upheld the RPD’s decision. This is the judicial review of the RAD’s decision. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing this application for judicial review. The RAD reasonably found that there was an available IFA. RAD’s Decision [ 5 ] In its October 11, 2024, decision, the RAD found that the RPD did not err in determining that the Applicants’ alleged relocation to Veracruz was not credibly established. This was because the Principal Applicant had omitted any reference to living there in her basis of claim [BOC] narrative and did not credibly explain the omission at the RPD hearing. Having made this finding, the RAD also agreed with the RPD that the allegation that people were asking about the Applicants’ whereabouts while they were in Veracruz was not credibly established. Similarly, the RAD found that the RPD did not err in finding that the Applicants had not credibly established their allegation that CJNG members were looking for them while they were staying in Tonala. This allegation was not included in their BOC narrative or amended narrative and the omission was not reasonably explained. [ 6 ] With respect to localized risk, the RAD found that the RPD did not err in determining that if, as the Applicants alleged, the CJNG drove by their home in Pijijiapan, this did not establish that the Applicants are at risk in Merida. While it indicates that the CJNG remain interested in the Applicants in their home area, it does not establish that the CJNG would expend the necessary resources to track the Applicants to Merida, which is a great distance away. [ 7 ] The RAD agreed with the RPD that, although the CJNG has the means to locate the Applicants in the IFA, it did not have the motivation to do so. The RAD found that the RPD did not err in determining that the Principal Applicant’s profile is unlikely to motivate the CJNG to track her to Merida. The RAD acknowledged that the objective documentary evidence indicates that a large debt or personal vendetta could motivate a gang to track someone outside their own area. However, it found that the Principal Applicant did not fit within that profile. Nor was there credible evidence that the CJNG has sought the Applicants outside their home area. It was therefore speculative to assert that they would do so in the future. [ 8 ] Finally, the RAD found that the RPD did not err in determining that relocation to Merida is reasonable in the Applicants’ circumstances. It noted that the threshold to find an IFA unreasonable is high and requires evidence of adverse conditions which would jeopardize one’s life or safety. The RAD found that the Applicants did not meet this threshold. Issues and Standard of Review [ 9 ] The sole issue arising in this matter is whether the RAD’s decision was reasonable. [ 10 ] The parties submit and I agree that the standard of review is reasonableness. This requires the Court to ask “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 99). The IFA Test [ 11 ] An IFA is "a fact situation in which a person may be in danger of persecution in one part of a country but not in another" ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) , 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA) [ [NAME] ]). Because an IFA in another part of the same country is determinative of refugee status, the onus is on an applicant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country, including the proposed IFA ( [NAME] ; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 415 [ [NAME] ] at para 28). [ 12 ] The two-pronged test for establishing a viable IFA is well established. The decision-maker must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that: there is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the proposed IFA; and conditions in the proposed IFA are such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including the circumstances particular to the claimant, for the claimant to seek refuge there. ( [NAME]; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA); [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 708 at paras 17-18); [NAME] at para 29; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1777 [ [NAME] ] at para 21). [ 13 ] As I previously held in [NAME] , the onus is on the Applicants to establish that the test has not been made out: [ 22 ] The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate that that at least one of the prongs has not been established. That is, the burden is on the claimant to establish that the IFA is not viable, either because there is a serious risk of persecution there or because it would be unreasonable for them to seek refuge there ([NAME] at 590; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA) [ [NAME] ] at paras 13-15, [2001] 2 FC 164). The Applicants must provide actual and concrete evidence of the existence of conditions that would jeopardize their lives and safety in relocating to the IFA ( [NAME] , at para 15; [NAME] at para 31). Failure to meet that onus means the IFA is determinative of the claim for refugee protection. Analysis First Prong – possibility of persecution in the IFA Applicants’ Position [ 14 ] The Applicants submit that the RAD erred in its determination based on the agent of persecution and its motivation by overlooking evidence, both documentary and in relation to the Principal Applicant’s profile. In essence, the Applicants assert that the RAD failed to engage with their arguments when it concluded that it was not credible that the Applicants had relocated to Veracruz because the Principal Applicant omitted referring to that location when asked at the beginning of the RPD hearing where she had lived in Mexico. Further, that the RAD erred in accepting the RPD’s finding that the Principal Applicant did not reasonably explain the omission from her narratives about her sister hearing from mutual friends that the CJNG were looking for the Applicants in Tonala. [ 15 ] Additionally, the Applicants assert that the RAD’s analysis of their subjective fear of persecution is unreasonable because the test only requires that there is no serious risk of the Applicants being persecuted in the proposed IFA. There is no obligation on the Applicants to demonstrate that the agents of persecution have the means to look for them. The RAD erred in finding that there is insufficient evidence that the agents of persecution have the motivation or interest in locating the Applicants in Merida when they had the means to do so. The RAD also ignored evidence and adopted the RPD’s reasoning without rendering an independent determination and providing its own reasons. [ 16 ] The Applicants submit that the fact that the agent of persecution is not actively pursuing the Applicants’ family members, or that there have been no new threats recently, does not mean that the risk disappeared. Nor can the Applicants’ testimony be rejected solely for a lack of corroborative evidence; the RAD should have accepted the Principal Applicant’s version of events. Respondent’s Position [ 17 ] The Respondent submits that the RAD did not doubt the Applicants’ central allegations of extortion at the hands of the CJNG. However, inconsistencies in their evidence led the RAD to find that the allegations of being pursued in Veracruz and Tonala were not established. [ 18 ] The RAD transparently justified the two credibility findings that led it to the conclusion that the Applicants evinced that they had received threats in their hometown of Pijijiapan but not that the CJNG was motivated to pursue them to Merida. The RAD engaged with the evidence and explained why the Principal Applicant’s explanations for inconsistencies in her evidence were unreasonable. The RAD’s findings left the Applicants with no established facts of threats outside Pijijiapan. The RAD then analyzed whether the Principal Applicant otherwise possessed a profile that would encourage the CJNG to pursue the family to the IFA and transparently justified its finding that she did not. Therefore, it was reasonable for the RAD to find that the Applicants had not established that the CJNG was motivated to track them to Merida. The Respondent submits that there is no merit to the Applicants’ contention that the RAD failed to conduct an independent analysis. The RAD clearly explained its reasons for agreeing with the RPD’s findings. Analysis [ 19 ] The RAD first found that the Applicants’ relocation to Veracruz and the claimed CJNG inquiries there were not credibly established. [ 20 ] The RPD noted that the Principal Applicant had testified that she lived in Veracruz for six months with her husband’s uncle and that the uncle’s friends had told him that the CJNG was asking about the Applicants’ whereabouts. However, the Principal Applicant had been asked at the beginning of the hearing where she had lived in Mexico and did not mention Veracruz. When asked where she had lived even for a short period of time she referred to Tonala, where she had been born. Later in the hearing she was asked why she had not mentioned Veracruz. Her response was that she was nervous and did not think about it. The RPD did not accept the explanation as reasonable. [ 21 ] In its decision, the RAD noted that on appeal the Applicants submitted that the RPD erred in finding that the Applicants did not move to Veracruz. They had submitted that the Principal Applicant had reasonably explained the discrepancy – being that she was nervous. The Applicants had submitted that it was reasonable to first think of the places where one lived for more stable and longer durations and that hiding places are not considered places of residence. Further, that the RPD asked the Principal Applicant the questions at the beginning of the hearing and out of context. They submitted that the RPD erred in finding that the CJNG did not inquire about them after they relocated to Veracruz. [ 22 ] The RAD did not agree. The RAD stated that it had reviewed the transcript of the hearing and agreed with the RPD that the Principal Applicant had omitted reference to residing in Veracruz. The RAD then described that interaction. [ 23 ] The RAD acknowledged the Applicants’ submission that the RPD had asked these questions at the beginning of the hearing and that places where one has lived longer are likely to first come to mind. However, it pointed out that the RPD had also asked a follow up question regarding whether there were any other places that she had lived and specified even if it was for a short duration. However, the Principal Applicant still did not mention Veracruz. [ 24 ] As a result of its finding that the evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Applicants relocated to Veracruz, the RAD agreed with the RPD that the allegation that people were asking about the Applicants in Veracruz was also not credibly established. [ 25 ] In my view, in light of the RAD’s reasons, there is no merit to the Applicants’ submission that the RAD failed to engage with their arguments that: the questions about the places of residence were asked at the beginning of the hearing, not related to the persecution or places where they were forced to hide; that for the Applicants a place to hide was not considered as a place of residence and that listing all places of residence is something that is reasonable to expect to forget in a particular moment; and, that later in the hearing, while recounting the events related to the persecution from the CJNG, the Principal Applicant clearly stated that they had relocated to Veracruz. The RAD addressed and did not ignore these arguments. [ 26 ] Further, upon review of the transcript of the RPD hearing, it is apparent that the RPD and the RAD accurately described the Principal Applicant’s testimony. [ 27 ] While I appreciate the Applicants’ arguments that the question about where the Principal Applicant had lived in Mexico was asked early in the hearing and without context and that from the Applicants’ perspective a place to hide is not a place to live – all of which were acknowledged by the RAD – it is significant to note that the Principal Applicant gave none of those reasons for the inconsistency in her evidence to the RPD. Her explanation was simply that she was nervous and did not think about it. The RPD, in its reasons, did not accept that explanation as reasonable. It acknowledged that testifying is stressful and can cause nervousness but found that it was not reasonable for the Principal Applicant to forget to mention a city that she was forced to flee to with her family and then lived in for the next six months. And, even after the question was clarified asking about where she had lived for even a short time, Veracruz was not mentioned. The RAD agreed with the RPD that the Principal Applicant did not credibly explain the omissions given that the Applicants alleged that they were forced to flee to Veracruz following an attack and that they stayed there for six months. [ 28 ] The RAD may reasonably draw negative inferences as to an applicant’s credibility due to inconsistencies or contradictions in their testimony ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 458 at para 39 citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 197   at paras 11-13, 17-18; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 281 at para 20). Further, credibility determinations are at the heartland of the RAD’s jurisdiction and are owed significant deference ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 753 at paras 31, 52; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 426 at para 41; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2014 FC 938 at para 13). [ 29 ] Nor was the RAD compelled to accept the Applicants’ arguments on this matter. And while the Applicants do not agree with the RAD’s determination of this point, it was reasonable based on the evidence before it. [ 30 ] Finally, when appearing before me, counsel for the Applicants also argued that the RAD failed to consider that the Principal Applicant disclosed the relocation to Veracruz during the hearing before being confronted with the discrepancy, demonstrating she was being honest and genuine with respect to where she had lived. [ 31 ] In my view, this does not impact the reasonableness of the RAD’s decision. The critical point is that when the Principal Applicant was confronted with the discrepancy, she failed to provide a reasonable response for not mentioning Veracruz. [ 32 ] The RAD next found that the claimed CJNG inquiries about the Applicants in Tonala were also not credibly established. [ 33 ] The RAD summarized the RPD’s findings in that regard. The RAD then noted that, on appeal, the Applicants submitted that the RPD erred in finding that the CJNG did not inquire about them after they relocated to Tonala. They submitted that the RPD erred by concluding that the main motivation for them leaving Mexico was that the Principal Applicant’s sister heard from friends that the CJNG were looking for them, as their fear cannot be reduced to this statement only, and the fact that it was omitted from their narrative. They submitted that it was not necessary for the Principal Applicant to mention that the Applicants were being sought by the CJNG in their amended narrative as their original narrative refers to it and that the Principal Applicant mentioned this at the RPD hearing. [ 34 ] However, the RAD found that the RPD did not err in finding that the CJNG did not inquire about the Applicants while they were in Tonala. The RAD agreed with the RPD that this was not included in the BOC narratives. [ 35 ] The RAD also agreed with the RPD that the Principal Applicant did not reasonably explain the omission. The RAD stated that it had reviewed the transcript of the RPD hearing. There, the Principal Applicant testified that while they were at the home of her husband’s uncle in Veracruz, he told her that CJNG members were looking for them which is why they fled from Veracruz. She testified that they went to her sister’s home in Tonala and moved around to friends’ houses within the same city. Common friends of the Principal Applicant and her sister told her sister that the CJNG were looking for the Applicants. The RPD had asked the Principal Applicant why her BOC narrative did not mention anyone looking for the Applicants while they were in Tonala, to which she replied that some things were missed because she worked with volunteers to complete her narrative. The RPD then asked why this information was not in her amended BOC narrative, to which she replied that she forgot. [ 36 ] In their submissions in this judicial review, the Applicants essentially make the same submissions as they did on appeal to the RAD – that the RAD erroneously found that the narrative does not refer to the CJNG while the Applicants were in Tonala and unreasonably reduced the Applicants’ fear of persecution to this single finding. Further, that the RAD ignored the arguments presented and did not engage with the evidence. [ 37 ] Again, the RAD’s reasons clearly address these concerns. [ 38 ] Further, a review of the Principal Applicant’s narrative and amended narrative confirms that the RAD did not err when it found that neither narrative makes mention of the CJNG looking for the Applicants in Tonala. [ 39 ] A review of the RPD hearing transcript demonstrates that the RPD raised with the Principal Applicant the discrepancy between her narratives and her testimony. Her response was that she was working with volunteers who had helped her and not everything was added and not everything was read to her. When asked by the RPD why there was no mention of this in her updated amended narrative, her response was that “when we checked with my current legal counsel, I guess it just – I forgot, and I apologize for that” . [ 40 ] In my view, the Applicants have failed to establish an error in the RAD’s finding that they had not established a credible basis for their claim that the CJNG had made inquiries about them in Tonala. That finding was reasonable. [ 41 ] Beyond the RAD’s finding that the Applicants had not established a credible basis for their assertion that the CJNG had inquired about them in Veracruz and Tonala, the RAD also found that the CJNG’s interest in the Applicants is localized to their home and that they had not established that they would be at risk in the IFA, which is nearly 1,000 km away. In this judicial review, the Applicants did not demonstrate this finding to be unreasonable. [ 42 ] The Applicants also submit that the RAD failed to assess the agent of persecution’s motivation and interest in locating the Applicants and that the RAD erred in agreeing with the RPD that there is no personal vendetta against the Applicants and disregarding her recognition as a person who has previously run for a political position. Although the persecution is not motivated by the political affiliation, the Principal Applicant is “easily distinguishable from the rest of the population and she is perceived as someone with economic power.” The Applicants submit that this could be a sufficient reason to motivate a criminal group to track an individual. [ 43 ] The RAD found that the Principal Applicant’s profile is unlikely to motivate the CJNG to track her to the IFA. [ 44 ] The RAD summarized the RPD’s findings. The RAD went on to acknowledge the Applicants’ argument that the RPD erred in finding that the CJNG are not motivated to locate them in Merida. And that they had referred to the objective documentary evidence stating that a large debt or personal vendetta could motivate a gang to track someone outside their area and that if a powerful criminal group has a very strong motivation to find and retaliate against a certain person that they could do so easily. Additionally, that the Principal Applicant’s career as a politician made her different from most Mexican citizens and others being extorted by the CJNG. The RAD acknowledged that the Applicants had submitted that her former political aspirations could result in the CJNG perceiving her as having financial means to be extorted and that punishment could set an example to the rest of the community. Further, that they asserted that the RPD erred in finding that because the Principal Applicant is not planning to continue to participate in politics in Mexico, she does not have a profile of interest to the CJNG. [ 45 ] However, the RAD found that the RPD did not err in determining that the Principal Applicant’s profile is unlikely to motivate the CJNG to track her to the IFA. The RAD acknowledged that the objective documentary evidence does indicate that a large debt or personal vendetta could motivate a gang to track someone outside their own area. However, for the reasons it had already set out, there was no credible evidence that the CJNG has sought the Applicants outside their home area. In these circumstances, it was speculative to assert that they will do so in the future. [ 46 ] The RAD disagreed with the Applicants’ submission that the Principal Applicant’s profile would motivate the CJNG to pursue them to the IFA. The RAD noted that the Principal Applicant had unsuccessfully run for mayor in 2018 in the town of Pijijiapan, Chiapas. The election was six years ago, and she has not been involved in politics since then. In those circumstances, and considering that there was no credible evidence that the CJNG has sought the Principal Applicant outside Pijijiapan, the RAD found it unlikely that the Applicants will come to the attention of the CJNG upon their return to Mexico. [ 47 ] The RAD accepted, as did the RPD, that the CJNG has the means to locate a target throughout Mexico. As noted by the Applicants, the objective documentary evidence states that powerful cartels such as the CJNG have the means to find and retaliate against targets if they have a strong motivation to do so. However, the RAD found that the evidence did not establish that the CJNG would be so motivated in these circumstances. I note that the Applicants do not point to any documentary evidence that was overlooked and contradicts this finding. And while the Applicants may hold a subjective belief that the Principal Applicant’s profile as a former political candidate will serve as motivation for the CJNG to seek her out in the IFA, they point to no objective documentary evidence confirming this. [ 48 ] The Applicants’ arguments in this judicial review were also made before the RAD and were rejected for the reasons set out by the RAD. There is no merit to the Applicants’ submission that the RAD failed to assess the agent of persecution’s motivation and interest in locating the Applicants in Mexico. The Applicants simply disagree with the RAD’s conclusions. [ 49 ] The Applicants also assert that testimony cannot be rejected solely because of a lack of corroborative evidence and that the RAD should have accepted the Principal Applicant’s version of events without corroborative evidence. The Applicants offer no further specifics of this argument. I note that they made this same argument before the RAD. The RAD found that RPD did not err in the manner alleged. The RPD had referred to credibility issues arising from omissions from the Principal Applicant’s testimony and BOC narratives which were not reasonably explained. The RAD found that in circumstances where there are independent credibility concerns, it is not an error to rely on the absence of corroborative documents. I see no error in that finding. Nor is it apparent to me that the RPD or the RAD’s determinations were founded on an absence of corroborating evidence. [ 50 ] Finally, I also agree with the Respondent that there is no merit to the Applicants’ contention that the RAD failed to conduct an independent analysis of their appeal. As is obvious from the above, the RAD clearly explained its reasons for agreeing with the RPD’s findings. It expressly mentioned the Applicants’ submissions on appeal and why it did not find them persuasive. [ 51 ] The Applicants have not raised a reviewable error in the RAD’s analysis of the first prong of the IFA test. Second Prong – reasonableness to relocating to the IFA. [ 52 ] The Applicants submit that the RAD “failed” when it determined that the Applicants did not put forth any reason that they would face barriers to relocating to the IFA aside from their fear that the cartel would find them. The RAD failed by focusing on the potential financial support from the Principal Applicant’s husband, disregarding other reasons why the Applicants would suffer hardship there. The RAD also ignored NDP evidence regarding the lack of access to healthcare, education and general violence that specifically addresses the situation of single women without male support, including access to employment, housing and support services, particularly in Mexico City and Merida. And, if the Applicants have to remain in hiding to avoid harm, it would not be evidence of an IFA. [ 53 ] The Respondent submits that the RAD expressly analyzed the factors placed before it by the Applicants on this prong of the IFA test and transparently justified its finding that none of them rendered their relocation unreasonable in the circumstances. The evidence did not support the Applicants’ contention that they would be unable to financially support themselves in Merida. Nor was there any other evidence that relocation would be unreasonable. The Applicants’ suggestion that they would be forced to live in hiding in Merida ignores the RAD’s finding that they did not face a serious risk of harm from the CJNG in the IFA. [ 54 ] I note that in its reasons, the RAD considered the Applicants’ submissions that: the Principal Applicant will have difficulty finding employment in Merida as she has limited work experience; the children are minors or in school so they cannot support themselves; the RPD erred in stating that the Principal Applicant’s husband can support them as it is not safe for him to return to Mexico; sending the Principal Applicant and children to Merida without family or friends to support them will result in poverty and potential homelessness; the RPD ignored the economic situation and corruption in Mexico; and, alleged lack of healthcare and access to education. [ 55 ] However, the RAD found that the RPD did not err in determining that relocation to Merida is reasonable in the Applicants’ circumstances. The RAD noted that the threshold to find an IFA unreasonable is high and requires evidence of adverse conditions which would jeopardize one’s life or safety. The RAD found that the Applicants’ circumstances do not meet the threshold. [ 56 ] The RAD disagreed with the Applicants’ submission that they will not have financial support in Mexico. The Principal Applicant testified that the Applicants are currently receiving financial support from the Principal Applicant’s husband, a dual Mexican American citizen who works in the United States. The RAD found that there was no evidence that he will not continue to do so should the Applicants return to Mexico or that he cannot return to Mexico and find work. The RAD accepted that the Principal Applicant’s spouse was also a victim of the cartel, however, it had found that Merida is safe. The RAD also noted that the Principal Applicant has limited work experience but also that she completed her university degree in 2023. Overall, the RAD found that the Applicants will be able to secure accommodation in Merida and disagreed with their submission that they will live in poverty there because they do not have the support of family or friends. [ 57 ] This is consistent with the evidence in the record. At the RPD hearing, the Principal Applicant testified that she had finished her university degree in psychology, although she had not yet worked in her field. She stated that she receives financial support from Ontario Works and from her husband who works construction in the United States. She provided no evidence that the financial support from her husband would cease if the Applicants are returned to Mexico. [ 58 ] While the RAD did not specifically engage with the NDP evidence regarding single women in Mexico, I do not find that this renders the decision unreasonable. The RAD reasonably found that the Applicants had not established that they would be without financial support from the Principal Applicant’s husband if they return to Mexico. Therefore, the Principal Applicant would not be a single woman without financial support. [ 59 ] Further, the Applicants’ submission that they would have difficulty accessing healthcare was premised on the Principal Applicant not being able to find a sustainable job. However, the RAD found that the Principal Applicant was educated and, in any event, that the Applicants had not shown that they would not continue to receive financial support from the Principal Applicant’s husband. [ 60 ] When asked why the Principal Applicant would not be able to find a place to live and work in Merida or Mexico City, she responded that even if she tried to obtain work, register her children for school or obtain healthcare, she would need to provide her identification and through that she could easily be found. Given my finding above that the RAD’s conclusion that the CJNG would not have the motivation to track the Applicants to the IFA was reasonable, this submission that she could be found there does not make the IFA an unreasonable place for the Applicants to live. [ 61 ] The RAD also disagreed with the Applicants’ submission that the RPD ignored corruption in Mexico. The RAD noted that the RPD acknowledged that corruption and violence are widespread in Mexico, but that Merida has a low crime rate, including low incidence of cartel-related crime. The RAD stated that the mere assertion of the presence of corruption in Mexico does not render Merida unreasonable as an IFA. The Applicants have not demonstrated that this is an unreasonable finding. [ 62 ] In my view, the RAD’s conclusion that the Applicants had not met the high threshold to demonstrate evidence of adverse conditions which would jeopardize one’s life or safety was reasonable. Conclusion [ 63 ] For the reasons above, I find that the RAD’s IFA determination was reasonable.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-20428-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is dismissed; There shall be no order as to costs; and No question of general importance for certification was proposed or arises. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-20428-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 23, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: [NAME] J. DATED: april 28, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicants [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario For The Applicants Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent