The Federal Court dismissed a Chilean family’s application for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision that found an internal flight alternative (IFA) was available in Chile. The Court held that the applicants’ medical, psychological and interpretation arguments were new issues that had not been raised before the Refugee Appeal Division.
Refugee claim turned on an internal flight alternative
In Martinez Mendez v. Canada, 2026 FC 1180, Justice Benoit M. Duchesne considered a challenge to a March 12, 2025 Refugee Appeal Division decision. The Refugee Appeal Division had dismissed the applicants’ appeal from an October 1, 2024 Refugee Protection Division decision refusing their refugee claim under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The applicants were a couple and their son, all citizens of Chile. Their claim arose from threats and intimidation they said they experienced after attempting to end a residential tenancy involving a former tenant. The Refugee Protection Division found they would not face a threat to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they relocated to either proposed IFA location in Chile.
The Refugee Appeal Division upheld that conclusion. It found the evidence did not establish that the former tenant would seek the applicants outside their former home on Julio Verne Street, and it found relocation elsewhere in Chile would not be objectively unreasonable.
Applicants raised medical and translation concerns
On judicial review, the applicants argued that the Refugee Appeal Division had erred in assessing the second part of the IFA analysis by failing to consider medical and psychological evidence concerning Ms. Martinez. They submitted that the evidence was relevant to whether relocation would expose them to serious physical danger or undue hardship.
They also alleged that interpretation errors during the Refugee Protection Division hearing had denied them a fair hearing. Their concerns included how one proposed IFA location was identified and the interpretation of testimony about the former tenant’s possible activities.
The Minister responded that neither issue had been raised before the Refugee Appeal Division. The Minister also noted that the Refugee Appeal Division had recorded that the applicants had made no submissions to it on the viability of the identified IFA locations.
Court declined to consider new grounds
The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review. Justice Duchesne stated that judicial review is conducted on the record that was before the administrative decision-maker and that the party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing it is unreasonable.
The Court found that the applicants had not argued before the Refugee Appeal Division that the Refugee Protection Division erred in its IFA analysis because of their medical or psychological profiles. Although the effects of relocation on a claimant’s mental health may be relevant to the second branch of the IFA test, the Court said a claimant must raise those effects and provide persuasive evidence in the specific context of that analysis.
The alleged translation errors had likewise not been put before the Refugee Appeal Division. The Court treated both sets of submissions as inadmissible new issues on judicial review and found the applicants had not otherwise shown that the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision was unreasonable.
Judicial review dismissed
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. No serious question of general importance was certified.
The decision reflects the importance of presenting the relevant grounds of appeal and supporting evidence to the Refugee Appeal Division. The Court did not reassess the refugee evidence or substitute its own view of the IFA findings.
Source: Federal Court Decisions