Background
David Garcia Juarez, his wife Cynthia Stephany Lopez Borja, and their adult daughter Carmen Borja Moreno fled gang extortion in Mexico City and arrived in Canada in 2022 to seek refugee protection. While awaiting their hearing before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), Ms. Lopez Borja was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent radiation therapy. At the October 2024 hearing, she remained in active cancer treatment under her oncologist’s care.
The RPD found the family’s account of persecution credible but rejected their refugee claim, holding they had an internal flight alternative (IFA)—Mérida, a city 1,300 kilometres from Mexico City—where the family could safely relocate. The family appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), introducing evidence about breast cancer treatment availability in Mexico. The RAD affirmed the IFA finding, focusing narrowly on whether gang violence or persecution would follow the family to Mérida and whether conditions there would “jeopardize their lives or safety.”
The Court’s Holding
Justice Brouwer found the RAD’s decision unreasonable and set it aside for redetermination. The court held that the RAD had misapplied the IFA test by adopting an overly narrow threshold focused solely on threats to life and physical safety. While the RAD cited *Ranganathan v. Canada* (2000 CanLII 16789 (FCA)) for support, the court clarified that *Ranganathan* does not overturn the foundational *Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada* (1993 CanLII 3011 (FCA)) test, which requires asking whether it would be “unduly harsh” to expect the claimant to relocate, considering “the particular situation of the claimant.”
The court found that the RAD failed to seriously engage with the realities facing the applicants, particularly Ms. Lopez Borja’s cancer diagnosis, gender, and ongoing medical treatment needs. Although the RAD acknowledged its obligation to apply an intersectional analysis, it sidestepped this requirement by narrowly focusing on whether conditions in Mérida would jeopardize life or safety. The court emphasized that a proper IFA analysis must consider multiple factors identified in UNHCR Guidelines, including whether the claimant could lead “a relatively normal life without facing undue hardship,” personal circumstances, psychological trauma, safety and security, respect for human rights, and economic survival. The RAD’s decision to disregard Ms. Lopez Borja’s medical condition and gender as material factors rendered the decision unreasonable.
Key Takeaways
- The IFA test is flexible and must account for the particular circumstances of each claimant, including medical conditions, gender, and intersectional vulnerabilities.
- A serious medical condition such as cancer, combined with gender-based persecution concerns, is material to whether relocation to an IFA location would be “unduly harsh.”
- Decision makers must affirmatively engage with—not merely acknowledge—intersectionality and the claimant’s personal realities.
- The high threshold referenced in *Ranganathan* does not reduce the IFA test to a narrow life-or-safety standard; it remains a contextual, flexible inquiry.
- Evidence regarding health care availability in the proposed IFA location must be considered alongside the claimant’s specific medical needs.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance for refugee claimants facing gender-based persecution or with serious medical conditions. By reminding decision makers that the IFA test is contextual and must grapple with the intersection of a claimant’s personal circumstances—including illness and gender—the court has strengthened protections against mechanical application of the doctrine. For women in particular, the ruling establishes that gender-based violence concerns and medical vulnerabilities must be weighed seriously in IFA analysis, not subordinated to a narrow focus on imminent physical danger.
The decision also has implications for how Canadian refugee adjudication engages with intersectionality more broadly. The court’s emphasis that acknowledging an intersectional obligation is meaningless without substantive application sends a message that procedural compliance with intersectional analysis is insufficient; the analysis must be genuine and outcome-determinative where relevant to the claimant’s circumstances.