Background
The applicants were a husband, wife, and minor child from Mexico. In March 2022, cartel members kidnapped the husband, accused him of working for a rival cartel, and demanded information about a business connected to that rival. They released him after approximately five hours but retained the family’s contact information and warned that he would be monitored. He quit his job, moved elsewhere in Mexico, and later came to Canada; his wife and child followed.
The Refugee Protection Division rejected the family’s refugee claims in November 2024 because it found they had a viable internal flight alternative within Mexico. The Refugee Appeal Division dismissed their appeal in February 2025 on the same basis. The family sought judicial review, arguing that the RAD had failed to consider the evidence as a whole when assessing whether the proposed relocation would be safe and reasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. Applying reasonableness review, Justice Sadrehashemi held that the RAD’s conclusion that the cartel lacked continuing motivation to pursue the family in the proposed internal flight alternative was transparent, intelligible, and justified by the record.
The RAD reasonably considered the original reason for the cartel’s interest, the nature of its threats, the absence of subsequent contact with the applicants or their relatives in Mexico, and its conclusion that an alleged attempt to kidnap the child was not linked to the cartel’s earlier threat. The RAD also adequately assessed whether relocation would be reasonable by considering the applicants’ ages, education, work experience, language ability, prior relocations, mental health, and access to services. The Court found no material factor that the RAD had overlooked.
Key Takeaways
- An internal flight alternative can defeat a refugee claim when relocation would be both safe and objectively reasonable.
- Whether an alleged persecutor remains motivated to pursue a claimant requires a contextual assessment; no fixed period without contact automatically establishes a lack of motivation.
- A reviewing court will not intervene where the RAD addresses the relevant evidence and provides a coherent, record-based explanation for its conclusions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the fact-specific nature of internal flight alternative findings, particularly where cartel violence is alleged. Evidence about why the claimant was targeted, what the persecutor did afterward, and whether interest persisted may all bear on the safety analysis.
It also confirms that applicants challenging an internal flight alternative must identify a serious flaw in the RAD’s reasoning or a material circumstance it overlooked; disagreement with how the RAD weighed the evidence is not enough. No serious question of general importance was certified.