Date: 20251208

Docket: IMM-24051-24

Citation: 2025 FC 1934

Ottawa, Ontario, December 8, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] The Applicant, Crescencio Porcayo Sotelo, seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) dated September 5, 2024, finding that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, C 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”). The RPD found that the determinative issue was the Applicant’s lack of credibility.

[2] The Applicant submits that the RPD unreasonably drew negative credibility findings from microscopic inconsistencies in the Applicant’s narrative and rendered a decision without due regard to the Applicant’s evidence.

[3] I disagree. I find that the RPD’s decision is reasonable. This application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background

A. The Applicant

[4] The Applicant is a 45-year-old citizen of Mexico.

[5] The Applicant’s refugee claim is based on three alleged incidents. The Applicant states that, in 2007, people dressed as police officers entered his house and asked for him. He later suspected that these individuals were criminals wanting to kidnap him and demand a ransom. The Applicant further alleges that, in 2013, criminals kidnapped five of his family members and a friend and demanded a ransom. The Applicant believes that the cartel La Familia Michoacana (“LMF”) kidnapped them because it controlled that territory. The Applicant declares that this was the reason he fled to the United States of America (“U.S.”) in May 2013.

[6] While the Applicant was in the U.S., he asked his brother-in-law to protect his children and former partner. The Applicant states that, at some point between 2014 and 2015, the cartel kidnapped his brother-in-law and demanded a ransom. The family could not pay the full amount of the ransom, and the Applicant alleged that his brother-in-law was tortured and killed.

[7] From 2013 to December 2019, the Applicant remained in the U.S., after which he traveled back to Mexico. The Applicant states that he returned because his father needed his emotional and financial assistance. In his Basis of Claim (“BOC”) narrative, the Applicant states that, when he was in Mexico “the criminals started to harass [him], and they sent threats to [his] family”.

[8] In March 2020, the Applicant arrived in Canada. In June 2020, he made a refugee claim, stating that he feared for his life from LMF.

[9] On October 22, 2021, the Applicant had a workplace accident. A report from the Workplace Safety Insurance Board of Ontario (“WSIB”) stated the accident resulted in cognitive symptoms. The Applicant described that after this accident, his memory was “very bad” and he struggled to retain information.

[10] On May 23, 2024, the Applicant had a second workplace accident while working as a forklift driver. He reported to the WSIB that this accident injured his upper back and left shoulder.

B. Decision under Review

[11] In a decision dated September 5, 2024, the RPD refused the Applicant’s refugee claim.

[12] The RPD drew negative credibility findings from the inconsistencies in the Applicant’s testimony. The RPD found “discrepancies regarding the threats he and his family received in 2019, his failure to establish LMF as the agent of persecution, and his failure to establish [his brother-in-law]’s death.” Specifically, the RPD noted varying dates given for when the Applicant’s brother-in-law was kidnapped. The RPD further found that the Applicant’s BOC narrative provided gruesome details about his brother-in-law’s death, but the evidence before the RPD indicated that the body was never recovered. The RPD raised additional concerns over the kidnappers’ identity, indicating that smaller criminal groups could have been responsible. Regarding the Applicant’s return to Mexico in 2019, the RPD noted the Applicant testified that “he did not suffer threats or harm when he returned to Mexico,” but he wrote in his BOC narrative that both he and his family received threats from criminals.

[13] The RPD determined that these inconsistencies could not be explained by the Applicant’s workplace injuries. The RPD found that the Applicant did not show that the second workplace accident affected his cognitive function or memory. Regarding the first injury, the RPD found that WSIB reports showed “improvements since 2021.” In particular, the RPD noted that the Applicant was “recommended to be discharged from treatment in 2023” and “worked over 50 hours a week in May 2024.” The RPD further noted that the Applicant described improvements after he received new medications.

[14] The RPD also found that the Applicant lacked subjective fear of persecution, because he did not claim asylum in the U.S. The Applicant testified that he did not know he could claim refugee status in the U.S. But the RPD noted that he became aware that he could claim protection in Canada because his family researched the process. Consequently, the RPD reasoned that the Applicant’s family could have equally found this information about the U.S.

[15] The RPD’s negative credibility finding, along with its finding that the Applicant did not have subjective fear of LMF, led it to conclude that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

[16] The Applicant appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division, which in a decision dated December 2, 2024, found it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

III. Issue and Standard of Review

[17] The Applicant submits that the RPD’s decision contains errors of fact and law, as well as issues of fairness. However, the substance of the Applicant’s submissions addresses only the reasonableness of the RPD’s decision and does not challenge the RPD’s procedure. I therefore find that the sole issue in this application is whether the RPD’s decision is reasonable.

[18] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review (Vavilov at paras 12-13). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified (Vavilov at para 15). A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision-maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences (Vavilov at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135).

[19] For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant (Vavilov at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 125). When reviewing factual findings, including credibility findings, the reviewing court should not interfere absent exceptional circumstances (Vavilov at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” (Vavilov at para 100).

IV. Analysis

[20] The Applicant submits that the RPD dismissed, without an evidentiary basis, his workplace injuries as an explanation for inconsistencies in his submissions. Considering that the RPD unreasonably dismissed the Applicant’s cognitive decline, the Applicant maintains that the RPD overzealously identified microscopic inconsistencies in his testimony and BOC narrative. The Applicant further submits that the RPD speculated when it found that the Applicant lacked a subjective fear of persecution.

[21] The Respondent submits that the RPD properly addressed relevant evidence and reasonably evaluated the Applicant’s credibility based on material inconsistencies.

[22] I agree with the Respondent. In my view, the Applicant has not shown a reviewable error in the RPD’s decision.

[23] Despite the Applicant’s claim that the RPD had “no evidence” to dismiss his workplace injuries as an explanation for inconsistencies in his testimony, the RPD noted several pieces of evidence to support its conclusion. The RPD highlighted that, in September 2022, the WSIB report described that “further improvement noted” and that the Applicant had “partially recovered.” The RPD further acknowledged that the WSIB report from October 2023 recommended the Applicant return to work on a part-time basis and stated that the Applicant had compensatory strategies for his memory impairment, including agendas and calendars. Although the Applicant highlighted other medical documents on the record during the hearing, these documents do not contradict the RPD’s conclusion based on all of the evidence before it.

[24] The Applicant further submits that the RPD misapprehended the evidence about the Applicant’s ability to work after his initial workplace accident. Specifically, the Applicant maintains that he did not voluntarily disobey the WSIB’s recommendation by working six days per week. Instead, his cognitive impairments prevented him from working in the service industry as the WSIB accommodation had provided and thus he found work as a forklift driver. At the hearing, the Applicant submitted that, because he had a workplace accident after only one month as a forklift driver, the RPD should have inferred that he was still cognitively impaired.

[25] It is true that the RPD did not analyze the Applicant’s work history, however, the RPD’s finding accords with the evidence on record stating the Applicant “ha[d] chosen to work 6 days per week” in the WSIB report for the second accident. The RPD cannot be faulted for failing to draw the Applicant’s preferred inference.

[26] Therefore, based on the Applicant’s medical evidence showing that the Applicant’s limited cognitive abilities were improving and that they could be managed, the RPD reasonably concluded that the Applicant fully participated in the hearing. I see no fundamental flaw in the RPD’s reasoning (Vavilov at paras 101, 126).

[27] The Applicant also submits that the RPD erred in over-emphasizing minor inconsistencies in the Applicant’s testimony. The RPD must not base adverse credibility findings “on a microscopic evaluation of issues peripheral or irrelevant to the case” (Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 564 at para 24; Attakora v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] FCJ No 444, 1989 CarswellNat 736 at para 9 (FCA)).

[28] I do not find that the RPD focused on microscopic inconsistencies. The RPD identified inconsistencies in the Applicant’s description of the timing and details about his brother-in-law’s kidnapping. This event was a key point in his narrative to demonstrate persecution. Likewise, the inconsistencies between the Applicant’s testimony and narrative about whether his family received threats upon his return to Mexico in 2019 directly contradict each other. These inconsistencies cannot stand along side one another and pertain to significant events in the Applicant’s claim, including an inciting incident and the grounds for his on-going fears of persecution.

[29] The Applicant also submits that the RPD erred in concluding that identifying LMF as the kidnappers was speculative. In reaching this conclusion, the RPD relied on evidence from the 2024 national documentation package (“NDP”) showing that LMF faced a rival gang. However, the Applicant submits that it should have relied on the NDP from when his brother was kidnapped in 2014 or 2015 because the rival gang did not form until 2016. I am not persuaded that the RPD’s use of the 2024 NPD was a central or significant error (Vavilov at para 100). The 2024 NDP articles explain the history of various criminal organizations that were active in the territory in 2014 and 2015 and describe criminal activity at large in the area. The RPD reasonably relied on this information to find that it lacked evidence to conclude that LMF was responsible for the kidnapping.

[30] The Applicant further relies on Mahalingam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 7285 (FC) (“Mahalingam”), to submit that the RPD lacked a reasonable basis to conclude that he had the knowledge and ability to claim asylum in the U.S. I do not find that this case assists the Applicant. In Mahalingam, the decision under review erred by failing to cite evidence to support its inference that the positive outcome of the applicant’s human rights claim would deter police harassment (at para 9). In this case, the RPD noted the Applicant’s own narrative to find that, because the Applicant had known how to file a refugee claim in Canada owing to his American spouse, he likely would have known about this process while in the U.S. given that he had been married to his spouse since 2016. I find that the RPD’s reasoning reflects “a deduction from the evidence” leading to a reasonable inference (Mahalingam at para 10, citing Satiacum v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] FCJ No 505, 1989 CarswellNat 906 at para 34 (FCA)).

[31] The RPD’s decision, therefore, reflects the evidence before it. The RPD relied on reasonable inferences based on the Applicant’s narrative and meaningfully analyzed the inconsistencies and the impact they had on the Applicant’s claim to conclude that he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

V. Conclusion

[32] In my view, the RPD’s decision is justified in light of the factual and legal context before it and is therefore reasonable (Vavilov at paras 99). The Applicant has failed to point to any circumstances in the RPD’s credibility analysis that would warrant this Court’s intervention (Vavilov at para 125). For these reasons, I dismiss this application for judicial review.

[33] The parties did not raise any question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-24051-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no question for certification.

“Shirzad A.”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: