The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review in Refugee IFA, Torres Ortega v. Canada, 2026 FC 1193, finding the Refugee Appeal Division reasonably concluded that Merida, Mexico, was a viable internal flight alternative. The Court upheld the RAD’s integrated analysis of the applicants’ claims under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Federal Court upholds RAD decision
Justice Gleeson released the decision in Ottawa on September 24, 2026. The applicants, citizens of Mexico, had sought judicial review of an April 2, 2025 Refugee Appeal Division decision affirming the Refugee Protection Division’s refusal of their refugee-protection claims.
The RAD found that the determinative issue was whether the applicants had a viable internal flight alternative in Merida. It concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution there and that relocating to Merida would not be unreasonable.
The Federal Court reviewed the RAD decision on the reasonableness standard and held that the applicants had not demonstrated a reviewable error. The application was dismissed, and no question was certified.
Applicants alleged risk from PAN members
The principal applicant, her two children and a close family friend said they feared persecution by Mexico’s National Action Party, or PAN. The principal applicant’s husband, who pursued a separate asylum claim, had run in a Mexican municipal election in 2018 and was reportedly abducted and threatened by individuals claiming to be affiliated with PAN.
After returning to Mexico City in 2018, the applicants reported that cars regularly remained outside their home and followed them when they left. They believed the occupant was a PAN member and that PAN was monitoring and threatening them. The principal applicant also believed that a 2021 vehicle collision was caused by the same person.
The applicants entered Canada in March 2023. They argued that they were unsafe throughout Mexico, including in Merida, and that the female applicants faced persecution based on gender.
RAD assessed IFA under both IRPA provisions
Before the Court, the applicants argued that the RAD erred by conducting an integrated analysis under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA and by incorrectly applying the IFA test. They also submitted that the RAD had failed to address their fear based on actual or inferred political opinion.
The RAD had found that a separate analysis was not required on the allegations and evidence before it. While it recognized that the burdens for claims under sections 96 and 97 differ, it concluded that the RPD had assessed the evidence against the distinct requirements of both provisions.
The RAD also found that the applicants’ assertions about the identity and intentions of the person in the parked vehicles, the alleged connection to PAN, and PAN’s continuing interest in the family were speculative. It concluded that the applicants had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the people who allegedly abducted the principal applicant’s husband in 2018 remained interested in locating the family.
Court finds no conflation of legal tests
Justice Gleeson noted that section 96 requires a claimant to show a serious possibility of persecution, while the facts underlying the asserted risk must be established on a balance of probabilities. The Court found that the RAD repeatedly applied the serious-possibility threshold to the forward-looking risk assessment while separately finding that key underlying facts had not been established on a balance of probabilities.
The Court held that the RAD did not confuse the tests, impose an undue burden or err in its IFA analysis. Its findings on the underlying facts were justified, transparent and intelligible, and supported its conclusion that the applicants had not established a serious possibility of persecution in Merida.
The Court also found that the RAD had not disputed the applicants’ reported subjective fear. However, it reasonably concluded that the applicants had not shown that this fear was objectively well-founded. Since the determinative issue was the failure to establish the core facts underlying the claim, the RAD did not err by not expressly addressing the alleged political-opinion risk.
Practical significance
The decision illustrates that an integrated analysis of sections 96 and 97 may be reasonable where the evidence and allegations do not require separate treatment. It also confirms, in the circumstances of this case, the importance of establishing the factual basis for an alleged agent of persecution’s continuing interest in a claimant when challenging a proposed internal flight alternative.
This is a Federal Court judicial review decision based on the record in this case. The Court did not certify a question of general importance.
Source: Federal Court Decisions