Perez Rodriguez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Perez Rodriguez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2025-03-06 Neutral citation 2025 FC 423 File numbers IMM-1072-24 Decision Content Date: 20250306 Docket: IMM-1072-24 Citation: 2025 FC 423 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, March 6, 2025 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy BETWEEN:

EMERSON JESUA PEREZ RODRIGUEZ Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The applicant, Emerson Jesua Perez Rodriguez, is a citizen of Mexico who is seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] refusing him both Convention refugee or person in need of protection status on the grounds that he has an internal flight alternative [IFA] in his country of nationality. The judicial review application was allowed pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. I. Facts [2] The facts in this case are straightforward, and they are apparent from the Basis of Claim Form [BOC Form]. [3] The applicant is from the state of Veracruz. He is in his early thirties. He states that his brothers live in Texas. [4] In the spring of 2016, the applicant thought he could improve his quality of life by going to the United States. He states that he went to a town along the border with the United States, from which smugglers took him across the Rio Grande on June 12, 2016. [5] When he arrived on the U.S. side, he was taken to a secure location, where he remained for a few days. He was then supposed to be driven to San Antonio, but the vehicle was intercepted on the way there. [6] This resulted in his being detained in Texas before finally being deported on December 2, 2016. It was during this detention that the applicant apparently disclosed the identity of certain individuals to

the U.S. authorities. [7] Following his deportation, the applicant was advised by his parents not to return to the place from which he had left in Mexico, as people linked to the smugglers were looking for him. These people were linked to the Los Zetas cartel. As a result, the applicant did not return home; instead, he went to live with an aunt. [8] Three months later, on March 20, 2017, he flew to Montreal. On November 26, 2017, he illegally crossed the border between Canada and the United States to join his brothers in Texas. He spent three and a half years in the United States without status. [9] Realizing that his deportation in December 2016 could limit his chances of regularizing his status in the U.S., he chose to return to Canada illegally. He arrived on May 8, 2021. He claims that, between May and October 2021, he sought a way to remain in Canada, before realizing that he could apply for refugee protection. He stated that he still feared the smugglers five years later because they continued to show up at his parents’ home. The BOC Form indicates the date of January 11, 2022. II. Administrative decision-makers [10] The RAD followed the lead of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], which had disposed of the claim for refugee protection on the basis of the availability of an IFA in Mexico. [11] Noting that section 96 has no application, the RAD relied on section 97 of

the IRPA with respect to persons seeking protection, as the RPD had done. [12] The RAD found the applicant’s account of his parents’ alleged move after they were visited by people linked to the smugglers to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies noted could have been counterbalanced if some corroboration had been provided. No such corroboration was provided. [13] The late submission of the applicant’s refugee protection claim was also held against him. Essentially, he waited five years before claiming such protection. The applicant’s having waited for such a long time was not properly explained. As a result, the allegations of reprisals from Los Zetas lack credibility. [14] Finally, and at any rate, the applicant has an IFA. It has two components. First, a claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution anywhere the claimant were to seek refuge in the claimant’s country of nationality. If this is the case, an IFA would not stand up to analysis. Second, the location of the IFA must be reasonable within the meaning of the case law. [15] The RAD concluded that the mere “serious possibility” of being persecuted is not sufficient given that this standard is lower than the balance of probabilities for cases covered by section 97, which concerns persons in need of protection. Although Los Zetas has the means to track down the applicant in Mexico, its motivation to do so was found

to be lacking. The RAD concluded that there was a lack of credible and reliable evidence that Los Zetas had visited the applicant’s parents to make threats against them when they were living in the state of Veracruz. There was no evidence or even allegation that any threats had been made by anyone anywhere else other than in the state of Veracruz. [16] As for the reasonableness of the IFA locations, the threshold is very high according to the case law of the Federal Court of Appeal and requires the life and safety of the person who is relocating to be jeopardized during the relocation. In any event, the applicant had not raised any sufficient reasons to persuade the RPD that he could not return to Mexico, pointing out instead that he was about to get married in Canada and that his future spouse would find it difficult to go and live in Mexico. This fails to meet the required threshold. [17] Thus, the RAD concluded that a viable IFA was available in Mexico. III. Arguments and analysis [18] Both parties agree that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. There is nothing surprising about that. Moreover, this is consequential, since the standard of reasonableness entails deference to the decision under review, and reviewing courts must show judicial restraint and adopt an appropriate posture of respect towards administrative tribunals (Canada (Minister of Citizenship

and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 SCR 653 [Vavilov], at paras 85, 13, 14). [19] In essence, the applicant is reiterating before the reviewing court what he unsuccessfully argued before the administrative tribunals. It falls short, far too short. It would have been necessary to demonstrate that the decision did not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency, and intelligibility—and that the decision was not justified in light of the legal and factual constraints. To do so, it is necessary to demonstrate serious shortcomings that point to a failure of rationality internal to the reasoning process, or that show that the decision is untenable in certain respects (Vavilov, at paras 99–101). Clearly, mere disagreement cannot suffice and, at any rate, reviewing courts do not rule on the merits of a case (Vavilov, at para 125). [20] At best, the applicant reiterated his assertion that his credibility should not have been tarnished by the different versions given before the RPD about his parents’ relocations in Mexico. The respondent is correct that the applicant provided three divergent versions of what should have been a straightforward account. The latter is not wrong to concede in paragraph 20 of his memorandum of fact and law that his story lacked precision. It was indeed confusing. [21] The applicant’s credibility was also affected by the fact

that he waited several years before finally claiming refugee protection in Canada. One would expect a serious threat to generate a diligent response. While not determinative, a delay in making a claim for refugee protection is a factor to consider (Zeah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 711, at para 61). It has not been demonstrated how the administrative tribunals’ credibility findings do not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness. Mr. Perez Rodriguez crossed into the United States with the help of smugglers, was arrested and deported to his country of nationality. He left again, arriving in Canada, before returning to the United States, where he remained for over 40 months. He crossed the Canadian border once again, and for six months was allegedly unaware that if his situation was perilous in Mexico, a possible remedy could be a refugee protection claim. The applicant has not demonstrated how the negative credibility findings were not justified and this therefore affected his credibility. [22] But there is more. The RAD chose to consider the evidence, putting aside the shaky credibility of the threats made against the parents (who did not testify). The RAD found that the only alleged threats made against the applicant’s parents had occurred in Veracruz. There is no indication that they were even bothered elsewhere in Mexico. Indeed, the applicant only mentioned a

single person who made threats—not a group—and even then, he was unable to identify that person (RAD decision, para 32). Thus, the RAD concluded as follows: [33] There was no evidence or even allegation that Los Zetas had tracked down Mr. PR’s parents at his grandmother’s house in San Luis Potosi state after they moved there to continue to seek him out or to threaten them as a way of getting at him. The content of the alleged threat by the one individual who approached Mr. PR’s parents in December 2020 is unclear and there was no evidence from them to corroborate the threats or to provide any more detail about these threats. There was also no allegation or evidence that Los Zetas tracked Mr. PR after his release from the detention center in December 2016 or after his deportation back to Mexico where he lived with his aunt for approximately four months. With no evidence of threats outside of Veracruz, it is reasonable to ask oneself whether there is an internal flight alternative in a country of 130 million people, and to conclude that there is indeed such an alternative. The applicant was required to establish that this was not the case. He did not succeed. [23] In any event, the RAD’s analysis of the IFA has also not been shown to be unreasonable by the applicant, on whom the burden to do so rests. The only element to which the applicant returns is Los Zetas’ motivation to

track him down in the IFA location. Essentially, the applicant maintains that the motivation [translation] “would not diminish over time” (factum, para 39). This assertion is astonishing. As has been stated, decision-makers do not leave common sense at the door of a courtroom (R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33, [2019] 2 SCR 579, at para 154) without, of course, resorting to ungrounded commonsense assumptions or taking refuge in myths and stereotypes (R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7). Human experience continues to matter (R v Calnen, 2019 SCC 6, [2019] 1 SCR 301; R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 SCR 1000). In this case, the evidence did not show a serious motivation to track down the applicant anywhere other than in Veracruz. And even then, this motivation with regard to Veracruz appears to have been quite fleeting and was certainly not exercised with any consistency. At any rate, it was up to the applicant to satisfy the Court that the decision did not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness. The burden is not reversed to force the respondent to justify the decision as if, tactically, the applicant has prima facie evidence of a certain probative force that would entail some form of obligation on the part of the administrative decision-maker. [24] All in all, one fact seems clear to me. The applicant, in no way, denies that threats, if any, have always been made in Veracruz, far away from any

potential IFA. The respondent is correct that there is no evidence that the applicant was being looked for anywhere other than his place of residence in 2016. As a result, the applicant has not demonstrated how the decision under review, which found there to be an IFA, is unreasonable. [25] The claim for refugee protection must therefore be dismissed. There is no question to certify pursuant to section 74 of the IRPA. JUDGMENT in IMM-1072-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed. There are no questions for certification. “Yvan Roy” Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1072-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: EMERSON JESUA PEREZ RODRIGUEZ v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:

HEARD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 19, 2025 JUDGMENT AND REASONS BY: ROY J. DATED: March 6, 2025 APPEARANCES: Felipe Morales For the Applicant Mathieu Laliberté For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Felipe Morales, for Avocats Semperlex s.e.n.c.r.l. For the Applicant Attorney General of Canada Montreal, Quebec For the Respondent