JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant family are citizens of Mexico, who seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) finding that they have an internal flight alternative (IFA) within Mexico. They argue that the RAD misapplied the IFA test and failed to recognize that, despite their attempts to relocate within Mexico, there was an ongoing pattern of targeting the male applicant by the Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG).

[2] For the following reasons, this judicial review is dismissed.

I. Background

[3] The Applicants claim that Mexican organized crime gangs have continually targeted them throughout Mexico. They were first targeted in 2010 by the Los Zetas cartel in Queretaro. Then the CJNG extorted and threatened them in Mexico City in 2016, Veracruz in 2017, and when they returned to Queretaro in 2019.

[4] They came to Canada in 2019 but returned to Mexico in 2020. They say they were targeted by the CJNG in Tulum. They retuned to Queretaro in October 2021 and, though nothing happened to them there, they came to Canada again in December 2022 and made a refugee claim on the grounds they are not safe anywhere in Mexico.

[5] On appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), the RAD found that the Applicants had a viable IFA in Merida and they were not Convention Refugees or persons in need of protection.

II. Issue

[6] The issue is whether the RAD’s IFA analysis is reasonable.

[7] In assessing the reasonableness of the RAD’s analysis, the Court asks, “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).

III. Analysis

[8] In considering the availability of an IFA, the RAD applied the two-pronged test from Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1991 CanLII 13517 (FCA), namely that a valid IFA exists where: (1) the claimant will not be subject to a serious possibility of persecution, nor to a risk of harm, in the proposed IFA location; and (2) it would not be objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek refuge there, taking into account all the circumstances.

A. Was the “no risk” finding reasonable?

[9] The Applicants argue that the RAD relied on the generalized information in the Mexico national documentation package (NDP), but failed to reconcile this information with the Applicants’ personal circumstances and experiences with the CJNG, and the fact that CJNG continually targeted them. They argue that the RAD failed to recognize the cumulative evidence of the ongoing pattern of the CJNG targeting the Applicants.

[10] The Applicants argue that the RAD erred in finding that the CJNG only targets “high profile” individuals. According to the Applicants, the RAD’s reliance on this assumption prevented the RAD from considering CJNG’s economic motive for targeting the Applicants and the fact that the Applicants were continually targeted throughout Mexico.

[11] The RAD accepted that the CJNG had the resources to locate the Applicants but found that they would not be motivated to do so based upon the information in the NDP for Mexico. The NDP states that “a typical target includes high profile individuals who have privileged information, financial resources or important contacts that are seen to be threats to the CJNG’s interests” [Emphasis added.]. The RAD found the Applicants did not fit this profile.

[12] The RAD considered the previous targeting of the Applicants by the CJNG but found it did not indicate they would be targeted in Merida, as the previous interactions were “opportunistic” and connected to the male applicant’s business ventures; therefore CJNG would be unlikely to target the male applicant if he found different employment. The RAD noted the caselaw holding that the inability to work in a preferred field does not constitute persecution for the purpose of the IFA considerations.

[13] The RAD then considered NDP evidence regarding individuals, like the Applicants, who relocate to avoid paying CJNG extortion fees. The information in the NDP was that the CJNG would not typically target someone of this profile, unless the cartel perceived a significant financial gain. The RAD concluded that the Applicants would not provide CJNG a significant financial gain or financial motives such that they would be a target. The evidence before the RAD was that it was the male applicant’s businesses that were targeted in the various locations and thus, without that financial motive, the CJNG would not be motivated to seek them out. Based upon the evidence before the RAD, this was a reasonable conclusion.

[14] Finally, on the first prong of the test, the Applicants argue that RAD speculated on CJNG’s motivations to find the Applicants and the RAD failed to consider that CJNG repeatedly targeted the male applicant in the past.

[15] I do not agree that the RAD speculated on this issue. Rather, the RAD reached this conclusion based upon the evidence, specifically the NDP regarding typical CJNG targets. The past targeting of the male applicant’s businesses was considered by the RAD; however, based upon the NDP information, the RAD found that he was targeted because of his chosen work as a business owner. The RAD concluded that, if he were not engaged in that business, the CJNG likely would not target him.

[16] The RAD acknowledged that CJNG was in Merida but concluded they would be unlikely to target the male applicant if he was not engaged in business ventures.

B. Is the IFA reasonable?

[17] On the second prong of the test, the Applicants argue that the RAD relied upon optimism by finding the male applicant was “resilient”, rather than conducting the necessary analysis. The Applicants argue that the proper inquiry for the RAD was if relocation to the IFA was “unduly harsh” based upon Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA) [Thirunavukkarasu].

[18] Contrary to the Applicants’ submissions, the RAD did apply the correct test to the relocation considerations. The Federal Court of Appeal has explained that the “undue hardship” contemplated in Thirunavukkarasu was “the existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area”, which requires “actual and concrete evidence of such conditions” (Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA) at para 15). This was precisely the standard the RAD articulated and applied.

[19] The RAD accepted that the CJNG was present in Merida but noted the evidence that organized crime groups are less active in Merida and that Merida’s state of Yucatan has among the lowest rates of violent crime in Mexico. Additionally, the male applicant testified that he had no problems with organized crime in Merida in the past.

[20] While the male applicant may not be able to start a business in Merida, this was insufficient to render the IFA unreasonable. The RAD found that he had sufficient skills, education, and work experience to find reasonable employment in Merida. The RAD concluded that he could avoid future targeting by seeking employment in a different field. These were reasonable conclusions for the RAD to make based upon the evidence.

IV. Conclusion

[21] In conclusion, the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the RAD’s decision is unreasonable; this judicial review is therefore dismissed. There is no question for certification.

[22]  

JUDGMENT IN IMM-7517-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that :

1. This judicial review is dismissed; and

2. There is no question for certification.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES :

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: