Federal Court Rejects Refugee Claim Judicial Review

Date: 20260113 Docket: IMM-6186-24 Citation: 2026 FC 43 Ottawa, Ontario, January 13, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], seeks judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division ([NAME]) that denied his claim for asylum in Canada. [ 2 ] The Applicant challenges [NAME]’s negative credibility findings, arguing that they are based on an incomplete and unreasonable review of the evidence. The Applicant also submits that [NAME]’s determination that he had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) is unreasonable because it failed to consider his true risks. [ 3 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that there is no basis to disturb [NAME]’s negative credibility findings. I am also not persuaded that [NAME]’s finding on the IFA question is unreasonable.

For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.

I. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Colombia. He claimed refugee protection in Canada based on his fear of persecution by the [NAME] ([NAME]), who demanded that he reveal the location of his brother, whom they had declared a military target. [ 5 ] The Applicant’s brother fled Colombia in April 2021, after being attacked and receiving threats from the [NAME] in Barranquilla, Colombia. The brother came to Canada, and he and his family (his wife and two children) were granted refugee protection here. [ 6 ] After his brother fled Colombia, the Applicant claimed that he started to receive calls and threats from the [NAME], demanding that he disclose the brother’s location. On June 4, 2021, the Applicant left Colombia and went to the United States on a visitor’s visa. He returned to Colombia on June 16, 2021, explaining that he experienced financial burdens while in the United States, and he needed to return to support his wife who was then dealing with mental health challenges. [ 7 ] In March 2022, the Applicant was attacked by two men who said they were members of the [NAME]. This incident occurred in Barranquilla. The Applicant filed a police report about the attack, and he and his wife fled to Bogota, where they filed an application for a Canadian visitor’s visa. Their application was denied. The Applicant then went to his brother’s house in Maicao, Colombia, following which he moved to his sister’s house in Soledad, Columbia. [ 8 ] The Applicant says that in September 2022, four armed members of the [NAME] came to his sister’s house, searching for his brother. He says that the [NAME] members beat his sister and shot and killed his uncle before fleeing on motorcycles. The Applicant filed a police report about this incident the following day. [ 9 ] In February 2023, the Applicant fled Colombia for the United States. He then travelled to the Canadian border, where he made a refugee claim. [ 10 ] The Applicant’s claim was denied by [NAME], based on its negative credibility findings as well as its determination that he had a viable IFA in Colombia. [NAME] made several negative credibility findings which can be summarized as follows: The first attempt to flee Colombia: The Applicant went to the United States in June 2021, after he was threatened by the [NAME]. [NAME] found that he did not provide an adequate explanation for his failure to claim refugee protection in the United States or Canada at this time, or for his return to Colombia so soon after leaving. [NAME] found the Applicant’s explanations to be inconsistent with his claimed fear of the [NAME]. The Applicant’s return to Barranquilla and discrepancies regarding his subsequent employment: [NAME] questioned why the Applicant returned to the same city where his brother had been threatened and where the [NAME] was aware of his location. The Applicant had claimed that his wife had continued to receive threats from the [NAME] while he was in the United States, and [NAME] found his return to the same city to be inconsistent with his claimed fear. [NAME] also found unresolved discrepancies about whether the Applicant stopped working because of the [NAME] threats. He testified that the threats had completely changed his life and that he did not work after his return from the United States, but this was not stated in the Schedule A form he completed when he claimed refugee protection. The Applicant’s testimony did not resolve the discrepancy. The application for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV): The Applicant claims he received multiple death threats and was assaulted by the [NAME] in March 2022, but instead of fleeing to the United States using a visitor’s visa that he possessed, he applied for a TRV to Canada. [NAME] found his explanation for this to be unpersuasive. Discrepancies in the Applicant’s internal relocation before he fled Colombia: The Applicant testified that after the March 2022 assault by the [NAME], he moved to Bogota, and then to his sister’s residence in Soledad. [NAME] noted, however, that these addresses were not included in the Applicant’s Schedule A form, which was given more weight because the Applicant’s evidence was that he lived in Maicao and Soledad for several months and thus he would be expected to list them. [ 11 ] [NAME] accepted that the Applicant’s brother had been threatened and declared a military target by the [NAME]. [NAME] also accepted that the [NAME] killed the Applicant’s uncle when they came to the sister’s house searching for the brother. However, [NAME] found that the Applicant was not the specific target of this visit, because there were other family members at the sister’s house, and the Applicant was not singled out by the [NAME] for particular threats or mistreatment. [ 12 ] Turning to the question of whether the Applicant had an IFA in Colombia, [NAME] noted that he had failed to establish that the [NAME] were motivated to locate him outside of Barranquilla. The incidents that formed the basis of the Applicant’s narrative all occurred there and in the surrounding area. There was no evidence that the [NAME] had searched for the Applicant outside of that location, nor had they targeted other family members who lived in other locations in Colombia. [ 13 ] [NAME] considered the objective documentary evidence about the [NAME]’s conduct, and concluded that the group would not search for the Applicant if he returned to live in Neiva, Colombia. [ 14 ] Based on these findings, [NAME] dismissed the Applicant’s refugee claim. [ 15 ] The Applicant attempted to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, but it declined jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27, because his situation fell within an exception for claimants who were admitted to Canada under the Safe Third Country agreement with the United States. [ 16 ] The Applicant then filed this application for judicial review of [NAME] decision.

II. Issues and Standard of Review [ 17 ] The Respondent argues that if [NAME]’s IFA determination is found to be reasonable, there is no need to address the other issues raised by the Applicant. While that is true, as a matter of law, it is necessary to examine the other two issues raised by the Applicant, because they inform the IFA finding. Therefore, I will deal with three issues: Were [NAME]’s credibility findings unreasonable? [NAME] misconstrue or ignore relevant evidence? Was the IFA finding unreasonable? [ 18 ] These questions are assessed under the framework for reasonableness review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ], and confirmed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 [ [NAME] ]. [ 19 ] In summary, under the [NAME] framework, a reviewing court is to review the reasons given by the administrative decision maker and determine whether the decision is based on an internally coherent chain of reasoning and is justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints ( [NAME] at para 85; [NAME] at para 8). The onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that “any shortcomings or flaws … are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” ( [NAME]  at para 100). Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker ( [NAME] at para 125).

III. Analysis A. [NAME]’s credibility findings were reasonable [ 20 ] The Applicant challenges [NAME]’s main credibility findings, arguing that the decision gave insufficient weight to his explanations while also conducting a microscopic analysis of relatively minor questions. [ 21 ] First, the Applicant submits that [NAME] erred in drawing negative credibility inferences from his return to Colombia in June 2021, because subjective fear can still exist even though a claimant feels compelled to return to their country of origin. The Applicant explained that he had to return to Colombia because of financial pressures and to support his wife who was experiencing health issues at that time. He argues that the assessment of whether his actions aligned with his fears calls for a subjective assessment, which [NAME] failed to do. [ 22 ] Second, the Applicant argues that [NAME] erred by making plausibility findings regarding his conduct, including his failure to make a refugee claim when he travelled to the United States in June 2021. His position is that [NAME] should have considered his evidence, including that he believed the threats from the [NAME] would stop, a belief he only abandoned after they shot and killed his uncle. He says [NAME] needed to assess his conduct in light of the evidence about his subjective fear, rather than imposing its own assessment of what he should have done. [ 23 ] Finally, the Applicant argues that [NAME] erred in attributing such significant weight to minor discrepancies regarding his internal relocation after he was threatened. He points out that while the different locations were not listed in the Schedule A form he completed at the border, he did include them in his Basis of Claim form. He also questions [NAME]’s inference that because the [NAME] did not continue to call him, they were no longer interested in finding him. [ 24 ] The Respondent contends that these arguments should be rejected because the Applicant is repeating submissions that were considered and rejected by [NAME]. The Respondent also contends that these arguments amount to an invitation to re-weigh the evidence, which is not the role of a reviewing court on judicial review. [ 25 ] I am not persuaded that there is any basis to find [NAME]’s main credibility findings to be unreasonable. As confirmed in [NAME] at para 125, it is only in exceptional circumstances that a reviewing court can interfere with the findings of fact made at first instance. No such exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated here. [ 26 ] [NAME] conducted a thorough examination of the Applicant’s credibility, and its reasoning is clearly explained and rooted in the evidence. In this regard, [NAME]’s analysis is responsive to the Applicant’s narrative. I agree with the Respondent that several of the Applicant’s arguments repeat submissions made to [NAME] or invite a re-assessment of the evidence to assign it different weight. [ 27 ] For example, [NAME] considered the Applicant’s explanations for his decision to return to Colombia in June 2021, but it found them to be unpersuasive in the face of the threats on his life that he said he had received from the [NAME]. I can find no basis to question [NAME]’s assessment of this, and it was reasonable for [NAME] to find that this weighed against the Applicant’s credibility. In a similar way, it was reasonable for [NAME] to find that the discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence about whether he continued to work after his return to Colombia diminished his credibility, given that this was a central aspect of his narrative but his evidence was inconsistent and in some respects contradictory. [ 28 ] While I reject the Applicants’ claim that [NAME] elevated peripheral aspects of his evidence in weighing his credibility, I agree with one aspect of the Applicant’s argument. [NAME] was entitled to question the Applicant’s failure to include the other addresses in his Schedule A form, given his evidence about his internal relocations. However, [NAME] fails to explain how it assessed the evidence that should have weighed in his favour, including that he included these addresses in his Basis of Claim form and mentioned them in his testimony. [NAME]’s failure to explain how it weighed the totality of the evidence about the Applicant’s relocation in Colombia is troubling. However, even if I was persuaded that this element of the decision was unreasonable, [NAME] made a number of other credibility findings that were reasonable and properly explained. [ 29 ] For these reasons, I cannot find any basis to interfere with [NAME]’s credibility assessment. B. [NAME] did not misconstrue or ignore any crucial evidence [ 30 ] The Applicant submits that [NAME] failed to give due consideration to several important elements of his case. He says he produced evidence to firmly establish the threats he and his family faced from the [NAME], but this was not sufficiently considered by [NAME]. In addition, he claims that his evidence shows that the [NAME] tracked him down at his sister’s residence, but [NAME] failed to draw the appropriate conclusions on this point. Finally, the Applicant contends that [NAME] failed to consider his explanation for why he applied for a Canadian TRV rather than fleeing immediately to the United States. [ 31 ] I am not persuaded by these submissions. The Applicant is asking the Court to re-weigh the evidence, which is not its role on judicial review. [NAME] discussed the incident at the Applicant’s sister’s house during which his uncle was shot and killed by [NAME] members. The evidence on this event was not ignored, but rather [NAME] simply found it did not establish that the [NAME] was specifically targeting the Applicant during this attack. There is no basis to question this finding. Similarly, [NAME] discussed at some length the evidence about why the Applicant chose to apply for a TRV despite the [NAME] attack on him and their threats on his life. [NAME] reasonably drew a negative inference from the Applicant’s conduct in this instance. [ 32 ] I am not persuaded that [NAME] misconstrued or ignored any important evidence. The Applicant’s arguments on this point amount to an invitation to re-weigh the evidence, which is not the role of a court on judicial review. C. [NAME]’s IFA finding was reasonable [ 33 ] The Applicant submits that the evidence shows that he faces a risk from the [NAME] anywhere in Colombia. He argues that [NAME]’s analysis was flawed because it ignored the evidence showing the [NAME]’s determination to find and harm individuals they identified as military targets. He claims that the fact that the Applicant is the brother of a person that [NAME] accepted had been labelled as a military target should have convinced [NAME] that there was a serious possibility he would be harmed on his return to Colombia. [ 34 ] In his written submissions, the Applicant also asserted that [NAME] failed to consider his risks arising from the fact that the [NAME] would perceive him to be an opponent. However, this was not advanced during the hearing, and I will not discuss it further because the Applicant never claimed to face a risk because of his personal political beliefs or his imputed political opposition to the [NAME]. That was never mentioned in any of his refugee claim forms, nor in his evidence before [NAME]. The Applicant cannot raise it for the first time on judicial review. [ 35 ] I am unable to find that [NAME]’s assessment of the Applicant’s risks in the IFA location was unreasonable. [NAME] noted that the [NAME]’s efforts to locate his brother were limited to the city of Barranquilla and its immediate vicinity. None of the threats or attacks by the [NAME] occurred in any other location, and neither the Applicant or his immediate family were ever targeted while they were in other areas in Colombia. [NAME] based its IFA finding on this evidence, as well as its assessment of the Applicant’s profile as a potential [NAME] target, in light of the country condition information. Having reviewed the evidence, [NAME] determined that the Applicant did not have a profile that made it likely that the [NAME] would be motivated to locate him elsewhere in Colombia. This was a finding that was open to [NAME] given the record that was before it. [ 36 ] For these reasons, I can find no basis to question [NAME]’s determination that the Applicant had a viable IFA in Colombia.

IV. Conclusion [ 37 ] Based on the analysis set out above, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. [ 38 ] There is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-6186-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "William F. Pentney" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-6186-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: may 21, 2025

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: pentney j. DATED: january 13, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] & Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent