Docket: IMM-7508-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1948
Ottawa, Ontario, December 10, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tsimberis
|
BETWEEN: |
|
GUSTAVO VILLAREAL MARTINEZ |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Gustavo Villarreal Martinez, a citizen of Mexico, seeks the judicial review of the March 11, 2024 decision [Decision] of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD]. The RAD’s Decision rejected Mr. Martinez’s refugee protection claim on the basis that he is neither a convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] because Mr. Martinez has a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] in Merida.
[2] The RAD found that the determinative issue was whether the agents of persecution have the motivation to pursue Mr. Martinez in the proposed IFA location. On this issue, the RAD found that Mr. Martinez had failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his agents of persecution have the motivation to pursue him in the proposed IFA area.
[3] On judicial review before this Court, Mr. Martinez raises two issues with the reasonability of the RAD’s Decision related to the first prong of the RAD’s IFA analysis. More specifically, Mr. Martinez raises issues with the RAD’s finding that the group of farmers who had assaulted, threatened and abducted Mr. Martinez in his home state of Chiapas, did not have the motivation to pursue and target him in Merida.
[4] First, Mr. Martinez submits that having stated that it had “considered what occurred while [Mr. Martinez] was in Mexico”
, the RAD instead immediately focused on what had happened after Mr. Martinez left his country and its conclusion that the farmers group lacked the motivation to pursue Mr. Martinez to Merida. In response, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] submits that the RAD reasonably concluded that the agents of persecution would not be motivated to pursue him in the IFA since they have not attempted to contact him or his family in the last five years, which is in line with the jurisprudence from this Court.
[5] Second, Mr. Martinez submits that the RAD erred in relying on the conduct of cartels and organized crime groups towards relatives of wanted persons, and the failure of the farmers group to act consistently with such conduct, as a basis for concluding that the group lacked the motivation to pursue Mr. Martinez to Merida. Although Mr. Martinez failed to establish that his agents of harm are involved in organized crime, the Minister responds that the RAD’s finding was not unreasonable when it considered that even if the farmers were involved in organized crime, they were clearly not interested in Mr. Martinez since they have not exercised their means to locate him or access his family members.
[6] For the reasons that follow, this Application for judicial review is dismissed. The RAD reasonably assessed Mr. Martinez’s submissions and evidence against the accepted test for an IFA and reasonably found Mr. Martinez had a viable IFA in that the agents of persecution do not have the motivation to pursue him in the proposed IFA location.
II. Legal Framework on a viable IFA
[7] The underlying principle to an IFA analysis is that international protection can only be provided if the country of origin cannot offer adequate protection throughout its territory to the person claiming refugee status. A Convention refugee and a person in need of protection must be found to face the identified risk in every part of their country of origin. This test requires a claimant to satisfy the Board of a well-founded fear of persecution in their part of the country, and, in finding the IFA, the Board must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, of two things:
-
There is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted or subject to a section 97 danger or risk in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA exists; and
-
Conditions in that part of the country must be such that it would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances, including circumstances particular to him, for the claimant to seek refuge there.
Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706 (CA) at 711, and Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589 at 597 (CA) at 595
[8] The test for determining whether a viable IFA exists is two-pronged. First, the RAD must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk, which can only be found if it is demonstrated that the agents of persecution have the probable means and motivation to search for an applicant in the suggested IFA: Saliu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 167 at para 46, citing Feboke v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 155 at para 43. Second, the RAD must also be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, including the applicant's particular circumstances, the conditions in the proposed IFA are such that it is not unreasonable for the applicant to seek refuge there: Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA), [2001] 2 FC 164 (FCA) at para 15.
III. Background
[9] Mr. Martinez alleged that he fears returning to Mexico because he fears harm from farmers and government officials. Mr. Martinez alleged that he worked as an administrator liaison at the Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development (SAGARPA). Mr. Martinez alleged that in 2018, a conflict broke out between the farmers and the leaders of SAGARPA regarding money, in which farmers attacked their facility and employees several times, and he was ambushed, attacked, and kidnapped, along with his colleagues. Mr. Martinez alleged that the farmers who kidnapped him and his colleagues threatened that if they did not get their money, those kidnapped would pay the consequences. Mr. Martinez also alleged that SAGARPA was engaged in corruption and when he refused to sign the approval for a project with deficiencies, his position at SAGARPA was eliminated. Mr. Martinez alleged that after this, rumours spread and the farmers believed that he, too, was involved in the corruption, and they continued to pursue him for their money, causing him to flee Mexico.
[10] Mr. Martinez’s application for refugee protection was heard by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] on October 4, 2023. By a decision dated November 2, 2023, the RPD rejected the claim. The RPD found that the determinative issue was the availability of an IFA.
IV. Decision Under Review
[11] The RAD indicated that the determinative issue in that case was whether the agents of persecution have the motivation to pursue Mr. Martinez in the proposed IFA location. The RAD found Mr. Martinez failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his agents of persecution have the motivation to pursue him in the proposed IFA area. Therefore, the RAD found Mr. Martinez had a viable IFA in Merida.
[12] The RAD found Mr. Martinez made three omissions from his Basis of Claim [BOC] form. Namely, Mr. Martinez omitted calls to his father, inquiries to his co-workers and SAGARPA’s knowledge of his refugee claim. The RAD found these omissions to be more than minor, insignificant or peripheral. In fact, the RAD found the ongoing pursuit by his agents of persecution is a highly relevant and central issue to his claim. The same goes for SAGARPA’s knowledge of his refugee claim, which allegedly fueled their motivation to pursue him.
[13] While Mr. Martinez explained the omissions because he forgot, was not bright enough, and worried about SAGARPA finding out about his claim, the RAD found these explanations are not reasonable, for the same reasons articulated by the RPD. The RAD found Mr. Martinez attempted to embellish his claim with details of his ongoing pursuit by his agents of persecution.
[14] Mr. Martinez also argued the RPD erred by ignoring relevant evidence or engaging in speculation in their assessment of the motivation of the agents of persecution. The RAD concluded that the agent of persecution’s lack of motivation was a finding of fact made by the RPD after consideration of the past actions of the agents of persecution. The RAD found this did not amount to speculation and noted the RPD correctly considered Mr. Martinez’s circumstances in its analysis.
[15] The RAD confirmed having also considered the events that occurred while Mr. Martinez was still in Mexico and the events that occurred since he left. The RAD noted there was no credible evidence of any attempts made by the agents of persecution to pursue Mr. Martinez or his family members who are still residing in Mexico. The RAD ultimately found, on a balance of probabilities, that the agents of persecution are not motivated to pursue Mr. Martinez in the proposed IFA. While the RAD acknowledged that the agents of persecution may have the means to pursue Mr. Martinez, they found the agents of persecution would not exercise those means in the absence of motivation.
[16] As such, the RAD concluded under the first prong of the IFA test that Mr. Martinez would not face a serious possibility of persecution, nor, on a balance of probabilities, a risk to his life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, in the IFA of Merida.
[17] Given that Mr. Martinez has not challenged any of the RAD’s conclusions on the second prong of the IFA analysis, I see no need to summarize the RAD’s findings on the second prong other than to state that the RAD stated that the onus was on Mr. Martinez to establish, based on objective evidence, that relocation to the IFA is unreasonable. In this case, the RAD found Mr. Martinez did not meet his burden to present objective evidence that established it would be unreasonable for Mr. Martinez to relocate to Merida.
V. Standard of Review
[18] The Court must review the RAD’s findings regarding the existence of a viable IFA against the reasonableness standard: Kumar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1440 at para 22; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 10, 25. The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable: Vavilov at para 100.
[19] To avoid intervention on judicial review, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency, and intelligibility: Vavilov at para 99. Flaws or shortcomings must be “more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision”
or a “minor misstep”:
Vavilov at para 100; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Mason, 2021 FCA 156 at para 36. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision-maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances: Vavilov at para 125.
[20] The threshold to establish unreasonableness is very high, requiring "nothing less than the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area":
Ranganathan at para 15.
VI. Analysis
A. Are the RAD’s findings related to the lack of motivation of the agents of persecution unreasonable?
(1) Attempts made by the agents of persecution to pursue Mr. Martinez or his family members who are still residing in Mexico
[21] The RAD’s first finding that is under review is the following at paragraph 33 of its Decision:
[33] I, too, have considered what occurred while [Mr. Martinez] was still in Mexico, and what has occurred since he left. He left Mexico in July 2019 and since then, there is no credible evidence of any attempts made by the agents of persecution to pursue [Mr. Martinez] or his family members who are still residing in Mexico. Even since the RPD decision, I have no new information about any additional actions from the agents of persecution.
[22] Mr. Martinez submits that the RAD immediately focused on what had happened after he left Mexico and did not consider the past behaviour of the farmers group while he was in Mexico. Mr. Martinez argues that the RAD’s conclusion is unreasonable given the undisputed evidence that the group of farmers had shown great persistence in targeting him while he was still in Mexico, on account of their grievances against SAGARPA. These incidents allegedly culminated in the abduction of Mr. Martinez and some co-workers on November 6, 2018, and the seizure of his personal information by the farmers.
[23] At the hearing, counsel for Mr. Martinez relied on Justice Sadrehashemi’s decision in Canifru Candia v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 917 [Canifru]. In Canifru, Justice Sadrehashemi held that:
motivation findings are fact-specific decisions that may depend on how the RAD considered a number of factors including, among others: the identity and the nature of the agent of persecution, the reason the claimants were initially targeted, the steps the agents of persecution have taken, the length of time that has passed without contact, and the relationship the agents of persecution have to the applicants
Canifru at para 19
[24] As discussed with counsel for Mr. Martinez at the hearing, the factual matrix in Canifru is different from the matter before me. As can be seen from her reasons at paragraph 20 in Canifru, Justice Sadrehashemi held that:
[20] Here, the RAD’s motivation assessment is cursory. There is no consideration of the nature of the harms the Applicants had previously faced or that they were personally targeted for reporting a crime. The RAD did not consider that the harassment and threats took place over the course of seven years, long after the initial report, and that during this time, there were intermediary periods where the agents of persecution did not actively target the Applicants and did not pursue the Applicants’ other family members.
[25] There are several differences in the factual matrix of the case before me. Here, the threats here took place over one year rather than seven years, and there is no evidence that the group of farmers came back after any intermediary period of inaction. When I raised this difference in the factual matrix at the hearing, counsel for Mr. Martinez agreed with me that this case is factually different. However, counsel pivoted and indicated that the RAD failed in its obligation to justify its reasons and provide its analysis. I disagree that the RAD’s motivation assessment in the case before me was cursory and simply relied on the general proposition that a lack of communication by the agents of persecution is a good indicator that they lack motivation, because the RAD dealt with the factual matrix regarding the motivation at paragraphs 3, 23, 24, 32 and 33 of its Decision.
[26] I disagree with Mr. Martinez. It was reasonably open to the RAD to conclude on the evidence that the farmers group lacked the motivation to pursue Mr. Martinez in the IFA location because they have not attempted to contact either him or his relatives (including his parents and two siblings) living in the state of Chiapas, Mexico since he left Mexico in July 2019.
[27] The Minister is correct in stating that the RAD’s finding is in line with the jurisprudence of this Court establishing that it is reasonable for the RAD to consider the fact that an applicant’s family members remaining in their country did not receive any telephone calls or visits from the agents of persecution since the initial incidents occurred. Such a fact can reasonably support that there is no ongoing motivation to locate an applicant and the existence of an IFA: Pardo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 427, para 16; Jamal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1633 at para 27; Ocampo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1058 at para 28; Chavez Perez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1021 at para 10; Torres Zamora v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1071, para 14; Leon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 428 at para 16.
[28] Furthermore, in the record before me, there is evidence from Mr. Martinez’s father that he had previously received calls from the group of farmers, and they knew where his family lives. As such, there is clear evidence that the group of farmers knew how to contact the family members. However, the group of farmers has not made contact since 2019.
[29] I also disagree with Mr. Martinez’s submission that in relying heavily on the failure of the farmers group to contact his parents or other family after his departure from Mexico, the RAD did not consider the possibility that the farmers knew that he had disappeared from Chiapas state and left Mexico altogether. This is mere speculation. There is no evidence on the record that the farmers group knew or ought to have known that Mr. Martinez had disappeared from Chiapas state, which could otherwise explain them not following up with his parents or other family members remaining in Mexico. The RAD cannot be expected to justify mere possibilities in its Decision.
(2) Criminal groups in Mexico
[30] The second finding of the RAD that is under review is the following at paragraphs 34 and 35 of its Decision:
[34] I have also considered the objective evidence, which states that “criminal groups abduct and ‘torture’ relatives in order to find information about the targeted individual’s whereabouts…”
[35] [Mr. Martinez] has been out of Mexico for over four years. In [Mr. Martinez]’s circumstances and based on the evidence provided, I find, on a balance of probabilities that the agents of persecution are not motivated to pursue [Mr. Martinez] in the proposed IFA. The agents of persecution appear to have access to family members of [Mr. Martinez], and it is objectively reported that family members can be tortured for information about targets; however, there is no evidence that this has occurred, or even that the agents of persecution have made inquiries about [Mr. Martinez] since he left Mexico. I therefore find, on a balance of probabilities, that the agents of persecution are no longer interested in [Mr. Martinez], regardless of the knowledge he possesses and that he was previously identified, recognized, and approached.
[Footnotes Omitted]
[31] Mr. Martinez submits that the RAD erred in relying on the conduct of cartels and organized crime groups towards relatives of wanted persons, and the failure of the farmers group to act consistently with such conduct, as a basis for concluding that the farmers group lacked the motivation to pursue him in the IFA location. More specifically, Mr. Martinez points to the RPD’s finding at paragraph 26 that there is no evidence to establish that the agents of persecution are affiliated with any criminal groups and to the fact that the RAD did not state that it disagreed with the RPD’s finding.
[32] As mentioned above, IFA findings are highly fact-driven and may only be interfered with by a reviewing court in exceptional circumstances: Vavilov at para 125. I do not see anything unreasonable with the RAD acknowledging that Mr. Martinez has failed to establish that his agents of harm are involved in organized crime but having nonetheless considered that even if the farmers group were involved in organized crime, they were clearly not interested in Mr. Martinez as they have not exercised their means to locate him or contact his family. The next paragraph 36 of the RAD’s Decision is illustrative of how the RAD reasonably factored this conclusion in their analysis:
[36] Although the Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that his agents of persecution are involved in organized crime, I am mindful that the agents of persecution may have the means to pursue the Appellant in the proposed IFA. […]
VII. Conclusion
[33] Given the record and the evidence before the RAD in this case, its decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency, and intelligibility. The RAD reasonably applied the Federal Court’s leading relevant case law to Mr. Martinez’s risk of being located in the IFA locations through his family and came to the reasonable decision that the farmers group does not have the motivation to track down Mr. Martinez in the proposed IFA.
[34] This Application for judicial review is dismissed, with the Court noting that neither party proposed a question of general importance for certification.
Email this Content