Internal Flight Alternative Upheld in Mexican Claim

The Federal Court dismissed a refugee claimant’s challenge to an Internal Flight Alternative finding, ruling that it was reasonable for the Refugee Appeal Division to find viable relocation options in Mérida, Campeche or Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Sanchez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1382, Court file IMM-13363-24.
• Decision date & judge: November 12, 2026, before Mr. Justice Joyal.
• Issue: The claimant challenged the Refugee Appeal Division’s finding that he had viable internal flight alternatives in three Mexican locations.
• Outcome: The application for judicial review was dismissed; the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision remained in place.

Refugee claim was refused on relocation grounds

The claimant, a Mexican citizen from Villahermosa, Tabasco, sought refugee protection after alleging threats from people identifying themselves as cartel members following a 2017 robbery at an OXXO store on his supervision route.

The Refugee Protection Division rejected the claim on January 29, 2024, finding that he could safely relocate within Mexico. The Refugee Appeal Division dismissed his appeal on July 11, 2024, confirming that Mérida, Campeche and Cabo San Lucas were viable internal flight alternatives.

The judicial review concerned only whether the Refugee Appeal Division’s conclusion on those proposed locations was unreasonable.

Court applied the reasonableness standard

Justice Joyal reviewed the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision on the reasonableness standard. The Court considered whether its reasoning was justified, transparent and intelligible in light of the facts and legal constraints on the decision maker.

For an internal flight alternative to be viable, there must be no serious possibility that the claimant would face the relevant risk in the proposed location. It must also not be objectively unreasonable, in all the circumstances, for the claimant to seek refuge there.

The Court noted that a viable internal flight alternative is dispositive of a refugee-protection claim.

Cartels’ motivation to pursue claimant was central

The Refugee Appeal Division accepted that the cartels could have the means to locate the claimant in the proposed locations if they wished. However, it found that the evidence did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they would be motivated to pursue him outside his home area.

The claimant argued that he could be viewed as a perceived informant or person who had defied cartel threats because he completed an employer report after the robbery. He also relied on documentation describing circumstances in which the Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación may track people across Mexico.

The Court found it was open to the Refugee Appeal Division to consider that the claimant’s attempted complaint was never registered and that he had not acted as a witness in a criminal investigation or court proceeding. Those factors were relevant to whether he fit the profile of a person the cartels would be motivated to pursue in another region.

Justice Joyal also found that the Refugee Appeal Division reasonably considered the localized and time-limited nature of the threats. After the claimant left Villahermosa, the threats took the form of calls and text messages, while later inquiries to his mother remained limited to a known address and were not accompanied by threats or violence.

Second part of the IFA test was also reasonable

The Court upheld the Refugee Appeal Division’s conclusion that the claimant had not provided actual and concrete evidence showing that relocation would be objectively unreasonable for him.

The Refugee Appeal Division had noted that the claimant did not challenge findings that his university education and varied work experience would help him avoid serious social, economic or other barriers in the proposed locations. It also found that the claimant had not established that trauma from his past experiences would make relocation unreasonable.

The Court emphasized that the second part of the internal flight alternative test carries a very high threshold. It asks whether relocation would be unduly harsh, rather than whether the claimant would prefer not to live elsewhere in the country.

What the decision means

This decision does not grant refugee protection or direct a new hearing. It leaves the Refugee Appeal Division’s dismissal of the claimant’s appeal in place.

The ruling turns on the record in this case, particularly the evidence concerning the alleged agents of harm’s continuing motivation, the geographic scope of their actions and the claimant’s personal circumstances. The Court found that the claimant’s arguments largely asked it to reweigh evidence already assessed by the Refugee Appeal Division.

Source: Federal Court Decisions