Federal Court of Canada Dismisses Motion to Stay Removal Order for Mexican Couple

Strategic Insights -

A Mexican couple, Alexander Raymundo Lopez Caamal and Yeymi Maritza Pech Mukul, had their motion to stay their removal to Mexico dismissed by the Federal Court of Canada on May 2, 2025. The couple, who are indigenous Mexicans and members of the Maya people, had been living in Canada since 2018 and 2019, claiming refugee protection from persecution by the Sinaloa cartel. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) had previously rejected their claims, finding that an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Guadalajara was available to them, and that the cartel did not have a continued motivation to pursue them. The couple argued that new evidence, in the form of two declarations provided by their parents, established that the cartel maintained an ongoing interest in them.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Federal Court of Canada dismissed the motion to stay the removal order for Alexander Raymundo Lopez Caamal and Yeymi Maritza Pech Mukul.
  • The couple, who are indigenous Mexicans and members of the Maya people, claimed refugee protection from persecution by the Sinaloa cartel.
  • The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) had previously rejected their claims, finding that an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Guadalajara was available to them.
  • The couple argued that new evidence, in the form of two declarations provided by their parents, established that the cartel maintained an ongoing interest in them.
  • The court found that the new evidence did not establish that the cartel was targeting the couple or their families specifically, and therefore did not establish a serious issue.
  • The court determined that the couple had failed to satisfy the Toth test, which requires an applicant to demonstrate a serious issue, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favors staying the removal.
  • The Toth test is conjunctive, and each component is important, and the test is to be applied in a holistic fashion.
  • Irreparable harm must be more than the harm or prejudice that is inherent in the removal process, and an applicant must demonstrate through clear and non-speculative evidence that there is a likelihood of harm that is more than a series of possibilities.

Statistics:

  • The couple has been living in Canada since 2018 and 2019.
  • They had previously claimed refugee protection from persecution by the Sinaloa cartel.
  • The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) had previously rejected their claims twice.
  • The court heard the motion by Zoom audioconference on May 2, 2025.

Sources:

  • Federal Court of Canada, Order UPON MOTION, IMM-8659-25 (2025)
  • Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA)
  • Wasylynuk v Canada (Royal Mounted Police), 2020 FC 962
  • Spencer v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 361
  • Power Workers Union v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 73
  • RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311
  • Thanabalasingham v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2006 FC 486
  • Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81
  • Melo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 15140
  • Perez v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2007 FC 627
  • Atwal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 427
  • Janssen Inc v Abbvie Corporation, 2014 FCA 112
  • SKGO v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 83