Hernandez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
Neribet Hernandez Hernandez, a citizen of Mexico, said the Gente Nueva cartel tried to extort money from her on March 28, 2023 in El Campamiento, Atzalan, Veracruz. She tried to report it, was told by police to come back the next day, did not because cartel members were watching her, and left Mexico on April 27, 2023. The RPD and RAD refused her claim under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA because of an available internal flight alternative in Mérida, Yucatán.
What the Court Decided
Justice Azmudeh dismissed the application (a French-language decision). The RAD applied the established two-part IFA test, and the Court found its analysis clear and rationally grounded in the evidence on both prongs. It assessed the risk from the cartel in Mérida and the risk to her as a single mother under section 96, and personalised risk under section 97. On the reasonableness of relocating, financial hardship, high cost of living or lack of affordable housing do not in themselves amount to conditions endangering life or safety, and the RAD considered her arguments on criminal activity in Mérida and explained why it was not at a level making the IFA unreasonable.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓A cartel-extortion claim from Mexico was refused because you could move to another city.
- ✓You raised concerns about relocating as a single mother, with financial and housing hardship.
- ✓You are weighing judicial review after both the RPD and RAD refused your claim.
Key Takeaways
- The IFA test has two parts: safety in the new location and the reasonableness of relocating there.
- Ordinary hardship such as cost of living does not by itself make an IFA unreasonable.
- A clear, evidence-based analysis under both sections 96 and 97 is likely to survive judicial review.