Cesar Oswaldo SAUCEDO VILLAVERDE Noemi Eunice RIVAS BOLANOS Anna Victoria SAUCEDO RIVAS Applicants v. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada, 2023 FC 291

Date: 20230302 Docket: IMM-8004-21 Citation: 2023 FC 291 Ottawa, Ontario, March 2, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Fuhrer BETWEEN:Cesar Oswaldo SAUCEDO VILLAVERDENoemi Eunice RIVAS BOLANOSAnna Victoria SAUCEDO RIVASApplicantsandThe Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship CanadaRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Overview [1] The Applicants are a family from Mexico who fear the Jalisco New Generation Cartel [CJNG].

The Principal Applicant, CesarOswaldo Saucedo Villaverde, alleges that the CJNG targeted him because he worked at a medical clinic in Jalisco, Mexico that treatedshooting victims the CJNG wanted dead. The Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada[IRB] dismissed their claim. [2] The Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the IRB dismissed the Applicants’ appeal [Decision] and confirmed the decision of the RPDdismissing the Applicants’ refugee claim.

Finding the Applicants generally credible, the determinative issue before both tribunals wasthe availability of an internal flight alternative [IFA] for the Applicants in Merida, Yucatan. [3] The Applicants seek judicial review of the Decision. [4] I am not persuaded that the Applicants have satisfied their burden of showing that RAD’s IFA analysis is unreasonable. For thereasons below, I therefore dismiss this application for judicial review. II.

Issues and Standard of Review [5] Having considered the parties’ written and oral submissions, the evidence of record and the applicable jurisprudence, I find that thismatter raises the following issues: A. Did the RAD err by failing to address evidence that the CJNG operates in Yucatan state? B. Is the RAD’s finding that the CJNG would not target the Applicants unsupported by the evidence? C.

Did the RAD err by requiring corroborative evidence? [6] The presumptive review standard of reasonableness applies to the above issues before the Court: Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 10, 25. To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks ofreasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility (para 99). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision makermisapprehended the evidence before it (paras 125-126). The party challenging the decision has the onus of demonstrating that thedecision is unreasonable (para 100). III.

Analysis [7] A claim for refugee protection will fail if the claimant has a viable IFA: Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment andImmigration), (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 589 [Thirunavukkarasu]. To maintain the claim for protection, the refugeeclaimant bears the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that (

i) there is a serious possibility of persecution in theproposed IFA; and (ii) objectively, considering all the circumstances including those particular to the Applicants, it would beunreasonable or unduly harsh for them to move there: Thirunavukkarasu, above; Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment andImmigration), (FCA), [1992] 1 FC 706; Olasina v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 103 at para 4;Haastrup v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 141 at para 29. [8] I note that the Applicants have not challenged the RAD decision regarding the second part of the IFA test.

Only the reasonableness ofthe Decision regarding the first part of the test thus is relevant. [9] I further note the RAD found that the RPD erroneously phrased the IFA test as the following: "“I have considered … whether, on a

balance of probabilities, there is a serious possibility of persecution…”" Specifically, the RAD found the combination "“balance ofprobabilities”" and "“serious possibility of persecution”" is incorrect. The Federal Court of Appeal, however, articulated the test in thisway in Thirunavukkarasu, above. [10] In my view, the RAD’s misstatement in itself does not undermine reasonableness of the Decision because, like the RPD, the RADconcluded the Applicants had not established a nexus between their allegations and a Convention ground pursuant to

section 96 or a riskpursuant to section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The crux of the matter before me iswhether the Applicants have satisfied their onus to establish a reviewable lack of justification, transparency or intelligibility in theDecision, including the RAD’s reasons, to warrant the Court’s interference. As I explain next, I am not persuaded that they have done so. [11] I analyze next the specific issues before the Court. A.

Did the RAD fail to address evidence that the CJNG operates in Yucatan state? [12] Contrary to the Applicants’ submissions, this is not a situation in my view where the RAD failed to mention evidence that wascontradictory to its conclusion: Malveda v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 447 at para 43; Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (FC). [13] The Applicants argue that the RAD ignored evidence in the IRB’s National Documentation Package [NDP] that show the CJNG isactive in Yucatan.

The RAD, however, discussed, and did not dispute, the specific documentary evidence cited by the Applicants.Acknowledging evidence of the CJNG’s expanding reach, including through possible alliances, and of the organization’s power andviolence, the panel nonetheless reasonably concluded, in my view, that the evidence does not indicate the group is active in Yucatan orspecifically in Merida. [14] I find the Applicants’ submissions are tantamount to a disagreement with the way the RAD considered and weighed the veryevidence to which the Applicants point; in essence, they ask the Court to reweigh the evidence, which is not the role of the Court injudicially reviewing the Decision: Vavilov, above at para 125.

B. Is the RAD’s finding that the CJNG would not target the Applicants unsupportedby the evidence? [15] I am not convinced the RAD erred, as the Applicants assert, in its assessment of the CJNG’s motivation and means to pursue them.In my view, the RAD reasonably concluded, in the circumstances, that the Applicants had not satisfied their burden of establishing thatthe CJNG has the motivation to find them.

Further, the means of the CJNG to find the Applicants was not the determinative issue foreither the RPD or the RAD. [16] The Applicants argue that the RAD accepted that they are targeted by the CJNG and illogically assumed that the Applicants did nothave a meaningful enough profile for the CJNG to expend significant resources to search for them.

The RAD did not find, however, thatthe CJNG would not have the motivation to track the Applicants because of the resources required to do so, but rather, because there wasnot enough evidence that the CJNG would be interested in doing so. [17] In my view, it was open to the RAD, and not unreasonable in the circumstances, to base this finding on the insufficiency ofevidence: Torres Zamora v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1071 at para 14. C.

Did the RAD err by requiring corroborative evidence? [18] I find this issue also turns on the RAD’s determinations regarding the insufficiency of evidence and, thus, as I explain, the shortanswer to the question is no. [19] The Applicants submit the RAD erred by requiring the Applicants to produce evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities thatthe CJNG was targeting or searching for them, beyond their credible testimony: Dayebga v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013FC 842 at para 26-28. [20] The RAD’s focus, however, was on the insufficiency of evidence available to establish the CJNG’s motivation to pursue theApplicants.

The RAD noted there was an insufficiency of evidence generally, including whether the CJNG also targeted other colleagueswho worked at the clinic with the Principal Applicant at the time of the incident that triggered the targeting of the Applicants.

The RADalso noted the lack of evidence substantiating that the CJNG is their agent of harm, that the CJNG has been searching actively for theApplicants or monitoring their whereabouts, or that the CJNG would know or learn if they returned to Mexico or where they werelocated. [21] I similarly find that it was open to the RAD, and not unreasonable in the circumstances, to determine the evidentiary record wasinsufficient, in a context where other evidence would be expected, to establish the Applicants’ risk: Olusola v Canada (Citizenship andImmigration), 2020 FC 799 at para 26. [22] Further, the fact that the RAD may have come to a different conclusion on the evidence before it does not render its analysis flawedor unreasonable: Krishnapillai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 563 at para 11; Solis Mendoza v Canada (Citizenshipand Immigration), 2021 FC 203 at para 43.

IV. Conclusion

[ 23 ] I find the RAD’s reasons viewed holistically permit the Court to understand why the RAD dismissed the appeal: Vavilov , above at paras 102-104 . For the above reasons, I in turn dismiss the Applicants’ judicial review application. [ 24 ] The parties did not propose any question for certification and I find that none arises in the circumstances. JUDGMENT in IMM-8004-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that : 1 . This application for judicial review is dismissed. 2 . There is no question for certification. "Janet M.

Fuhrer" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8004-21 STYLE OF CAUSE: CESAR OSWALDO SAUCEDO VILLAVERDE, NOEMI EUNICE RIVAS BOLANOS, ANNA VICTORIA SAUCEDO RIVAS v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND CITIZENSHIP CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: HELD VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: November 22, 2022 JUDGMENT AND reasons: FUHRER J. DATED: march 2, 2023 APPEARANCES : Luis Antonio Monroy For The Applicants Alison Engel-Yan For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Luis Antonio Monroy Monroy Law Office Toronto, Ontario For The Applicants Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent