The Federal Court has upheld a Refugee Appeal Division finding that Merida was a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for a Mexican claimant who feared the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. In Sandi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1254, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review on October 9, 2026.
Case concerned alleged cartel risk after one encounter
Jose Manuel Ibarra Sandi, a citizen of Mexico, sought asylum in Canada based on his alleged fear of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG). The Refugee Protection Division dismissed his claim after finding that he had a viable IFA in Merida, Mexico.
The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) agreed with that conclusion in a decision dated November 13, 2024. It found that the claimant had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the people he feared would be motivated to pursue him in Merida, or that he would face risk or hardship there.
The judicial review was heard by Justice Turley of the Federal Court. The decision under review was assessed on the reasonableness standard.
Court found RAD reasonably assessed pursuit risk
The claimant challenged the RAD’s findings under both parts of the IFA test. On the first part, he argued that the RAD erred by finding he had not established that the men who approached him in March 2023 were CJNG members.
The RAD had characterized his testimony about the men’s identity as speculative. It accepted that the CJNG had an active presence in his neighbourhood and state, and that the men referred to a “big boss,” but found this was insufficient to establish that they were more likely than not cartel members. The RAD also was not persuaded that a package he had been asked to deliver contained drugs.
Justice Turley found those conclusions were reasonably open to the RAD on the evidence. The Court also upheld the RAD’s finding that there was no evidence the men had sought the claimant again before he left for Canada in April 2023, or contacted his family or friends to locate him.
The RAD relied as well on September 2024 National Documentation Package evidence for Mexico. It found that criminal groups do not track every person and that the CJNG would deploy resources to locate particular types of high-profile targets, including criminal rivals, informants, high-ranking political opponents, people who have lost cartel money, and members of law enforcement and the judiciary.
The RAD concluded that a person who had refused to deliver a package on one occasion was not shown to be comparable to those examples. The Court found the RAD’s conclusion on a lack of motivation to pursue the claimant in Merida was transparent, intelligible and justified. Because the motivation element was not established, the RAD did not need to determine whether the feared agents had the means to locate him there.
RAD conducted its own assessment, Court finds
The claimant also submitted that the RAD had simply adopted the Refugee Protection Division’s reasoning instead of independently reviewing the evidence. The Court rejected that argument.
Justice Turley noted that agreement with the Refugee Protection Division does not itself mean the RAD failed to carry out its own analysis. In this matter, the RAD addressed the claimant’s evidence and submissions and explained why it did not accept the arguments advanced.
The Court also pointed to one difference between the two tribunal decisions: while the RAD agreed that the identity of the men had not been established, it declined to make the Refugee Protection Division’s inference that the interaction may have involved an illicit drug exchange. This supported the conclusion that the RAD had independently assessed the claim.
No concrete evidence relocation was unreasonable
Under the second part of the IFA test, the claimant argued that relocation to Merida would be unreasonable because of potential difficulties obtaining housing, employment and healthcare.
The Court noted the RAD’s finding that this part of the test has a high threshold and requires actual and concrete evidence that relocation would jeopardize the claimant’s life or safety. The RAD concluded that such evidence had not been provided.
The Court observed that the claimant had testified before the Refugee Protection Division that he could find both work and housing in Merida. Before the RAD, counsel argued that economic conditions could create employment, housing, health and education issues, but did not identify National Documentation Package evidence or other evidence supporting those submissions.
Justice Turley found it reasonable for the RAD to conclude that the second part of the IFA test was not met.
Judicial review dismissed
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review in Sandi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1254. The parties did not propose a question for certification, and the Court found that none arose.
The decision confirms the outcome in this individual matter. It does not direct a broader change to refugee decision-making.
Source: Federal Court Decisions