Background
The applicants, a father and daughter from Mexico, sought refugee protection based on their fear of the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación. They alleged that after failing to repay a 500,000-peso loan in 2020, they received aggressive calls, the cartel visited the father’s workplace, and men in a van later approached the daughter and demanded payment.
The Refugee Protection Division rejected their claims after finding that Mérida offered a viable internal flight alternative. The Refugee Appeal Division upheld that conclusion, and the applicants sought judicial review. At the parties’ joint request, the Federal Court decided the application on the written record without an oral hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision was reasonable. The appeal division independently assessed the evidence, identified errors in the first-instance reasons, applied the two-part internal-flight-alternative test, and reasonably found that although the cartel had the means to locate its enemies, it lacked the motivation to pursue these applicants in Mérida.
The record showed mostly telephone contact over more than two years, two in-person incidents, no execution of the threats, and no subsequent approaches to family members. The Court also upheld the finding that relocation was reasonable. Although treatment could be costly and unevenly available, public mental-health services existed in Mérida, and the applicants supplied no evidence that insufficient income would prevent access to them. No question was certified.
Key Takeaways
- Once an internal flight alternative is raised, refugee claimants bear the burden of showing that it is not viable.
- An alleged persecutor’s ability to locate a claimant does not by itself establish motivation to pursue that claimant in the proposed relocation area.
- Challenges based on health-care costs or financial hardship require concrete evidence capable of meeting the high threshold for showing that relocation would be unreasonable.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between a persecutor’s operational reach and its motivation to pursue particular claimants throughout a country. A nationwide organization’s ability to find someone will not necessarily defeat an internal flight alternative where the claimants’ profile and past experience do not demonstrate sustained interest.
It also underscores the evidentiary burden on claimants challenging relocation because of medical or financial barriers. General evidence of uneven or costly care may be insufficient when public services are available and the claimants provide no concrete evidence that they cannot access them.