Docket: IMM-3407-25
Citation: 2026 FC 243
Ottawa, Ontario, February 20, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN: |
|
FRANCISCO JAVIER NIEVES VELAZQUEZ |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Francisco Javier Nieves Velazquez (the “Applicant”
) seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”
), dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”
).
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Mexico. Together with his father he operated a watermelon farm in the state of Veracruz. On March 10, 2021, two armed members of the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion (the “CJNG”
) demanded money and told him that he was expected to pay money every month. He was threatened that if he reported to the police, they would know about it.
[3] In October 21, the CJNG demanded increased payment. The Applicant did not have funds to pay the demand.
[4] In February 2022, when the Applicant did not have money to pay the extortion demands, the CJNG sent two men to his house. He was beaten and threatened with abduction if he did not pay. The Applicant paid the extortion until December 1, 2022.
[5] The Applicant left his home on November 27, 2022, and went to stay with his in-laws in another town in Veracruz. He left Mexico on January 20, 2023.
[6] Following his departure from Mexico, his wife told him that the CJNG had left envelopes at his house, threatening his children. His wife and children left their house and moved to her family.
[7] The RAD agreed with the findings of the RPD: that the Applicant was credible, that the CJNG had the ability to find him throughout the country, and that he could safely relocate to Meridian in Yucatan state. This means that an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”
) is available to him.
[8] The motivation of the CJNG was critical to the RAD’s conclusion.
[9] The Applicant now argues that the RAD unreasonably concluded that the threats from the CJNG were localized to Veracruz and that he would remain at risk in Yucatan. He submits that the RAD unreasonably interpreted and applied item 7.7 of the National Documentation Package (the “NDP”
) which discusses the operations and scope of the CJNG.
[10] The Applicant also submits that the RAD unreasonably concluded that since the CJNG had only left letters at his house and did not try to find him, that it is likely not motivated to locate him.
[11] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”
) contends that the RAD reasonably applied the legal test for an IFA, and that the Applicant failed to show that relocating to Meridien was unreasonable, in his circumstances.
[12] Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the decision of the RAD is reviewable upon the standard of reasonableness.
[13] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision”
; see Vavilov, supra, at paragraph 99.
[14] The test for an IFA was addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 at 710-711 (F.C.A.). The test is two-part and provides as follows:
First, the Board must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of a claimant being persecuted in the IFA.
Second, it must be objectively reasonable to expect a claimant to seek safety in a different part of the country before seeking protection in Canada.
[15] The Applicant contests the manner in which the RAD treated the information in the NDP about the manner in which the CJNG operates and how it pursues those who do not comply with its demands.
[16] The RAD noted that the CJNG takes the profile of a target into account before “acting”
and that it does not pursue the objects of its extortion demands.
[17] According to the decision in Huruglica v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] 4 F.C.R. 811 (F.C.), the RAD is authorized to review decisions of the RPD on a correctness standard. It is authorized to conduct its own assessment of the evidence. In my opinion, this means that it is authorized to draw its own “inferences”
from the evidence.
[18] The conclusions drawn here were open to the RAD. It was entitled to assess the documentary evidence, as well as the evidence of the Applicant.
[19] I agree with the submissions of the Respondent that the Applicant raised speculative arguments about the interest of the CJNG in him, and he has not shown that the conclusions of the RAD on the first part of the test were unreasonable.
[20] The RAD noted that the lack of interest shown by the CJNG in contacting the Applicant’s family since he left Mexico is another indication of a lack of motivation in pursuing him.
[21] The Applicant did not challenge the RAD’s treatment of the second part of the test.
[22] In the result, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content