2022 FC, 2022 FC 1113

Date: 20220726 Docket: IMM-1689-21 Citation: 2022 FC 1113 Ottawa, Ontario, July 26, 2022 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:GELY SANCHEZ ALVARADO LUIS MIGUEL CANO LOPEZ LUISA MICHELLE CANO SANCHEZ AND NATHAN ALEXIS CANO SANCHEZApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Ms. Gely Sanchez Alvarado (the "“Principal Applicant”"), Mr.

Luis Miguel Cano Lopez, and their minor children Luisa MichelleCano Sanchez and Nathan Alexis Cano Sanchez (collectively, the "“Applicants”") seek judicial review of the decision of theImmigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the "“RAD”"), finding that they are not Convention refugees or persons inneed of protection within the meaning of

section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 (the "“Act”"). [2] The Applicants are citizens of Mexico. They asserted a fear of persecution from members of an alleged cartel. The Immigration andRefugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the "“RPD”") found that an Internal Flight Alternative ("“IFA”") is available to them inMexico City and Guadalajara. [3] The RAD confirmed the finding that an IFA is available in Mexico City and Guadalajara. [4] The determinative issue for the RAD was the availability of an IFA.

In my opinion, that is the determinative issue upon thisapplication for judicial review. [5] The decision of the RAD is reviewable upon the standard of reasonableness, following the decision in Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration) v.

Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 , [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653. [6] 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 bearon that decision""; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [7] The Applicants submit that the RAD erred in concluding that there was no continued risk of persecution. [8] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "“Respondent”") argues that there is no reviewable error.

He submits that infinding no continued risk of persecution, the RAD reasonably considered the fact that the Applicants could not identify their agents ofpersecution, and that there was only one in-person altercation. [9] I agree with the submissions of the Respondent. [10] In my opinion, the RAD reasonably concluded that there was no continued risk of persecution on the basis of the evidence before it.There is no reviewable error in the decision. [11] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1689-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "E. Heneghan" Judge

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1698-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: GELY SANCHEZ ALVARADO, LUIS MIGUEL CANO LOPEZ, LUISA MICHELLE CANO SANCHEZ, AND NATHAN ALEXIS CANO SANCHEZ v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN TORONTO, ONTARIO AND ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR DATE OF HEARING: JULY 20, 2022 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: JULY 26, 2022 APPEARANCES : Lisa R.G. Winter-Card FOR THE APPLICANTS Melissa Mathieu FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Winter Card Law Barrister & Solicitor Welland, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT