Federal Court Rejects Refugee Protection Claims

Date: 20260320 Docket: IMM-5617-25 Citation: 2026 FC 373 Ottawa, Ontario, March 20, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Duchesne BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicants seek judicial review of a decision made by the [NAME]’s [IRB] Refugee Protection Division [RPD] on February 24, 2025 [Decision]. In its Decision, [NAME] rejected the Applicants’ refugee protection claims made pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ]. [ 2 ] The Applicants alleged that they feared the [NAME], a paramilitary group in Colombia, because the Principal Applicant [NAME] [[NAME]] failed to repay a loan obtained from a [NAME] member. [NAME] rejected the Applicants’ refugee claims because [NAME]’s allegations were considered as lacking credibility and the documentary evidence led was insufficient to overcome [NAME]’s credibility concerns. [ 3 ] [NAME] analyzed the Applicants’ claims for refugee protection in light of country conditions in Colombia, including gender-based violence as it pertains to the [NAME] and the forcible recruitment of minors by paramilitary groups as it relates to the [NAME], and found that their claims had not been established. It also considered the [NAME]’ claims in light of the country conditions and reached the same conclusion. [ 4 ] In my view the Applicants have not demonstrated that [NAME]’s Decision was unreasonable. Their application for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons that follow.

I. Background [ 5 ] The Applicants are all citizens of Colombia. The Applicant [NAME] [[NAME]] is [NAME]’s spouse. The Applicant [NAME] is [NAME]’s [NAME]. The Applicants [NAME] and [NAME] are the Applicant’s stepson and son, respectively [[NAME]]. The Applicant [NAME] is [NAME]’s father-in-law. [ 6 ] All of the Applicants adopted the narrative set out in [NAME]’s Basis of Claim [[NAME]] form, which he updated on two occasions.

Accordingly, there is but one specific claim advanced for the benefit of all of the Applicants. A. [NAME]’s declaration upon entry into Canada [ 7 ] [NAME]’s Port-of-Entry [PoE] interview occurred on July 6, 2022. [NAME] explained at that time that he and his family were business owners in Colombia. He asserted that they had obtained a loan from the paramilitary before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the COVID-19 pandemic forced them into bankruptcy. He further asserted that the paramilitary subsequently started extorting them through threats sent to his home and to him. [NAME] and his family fled Colombia because of the threats and extortion. [ 8 ] [NAME] identified the paramilitary group [NAME] [ELN] as his lender and his agent of harm. He stated that he became aware of his persecutors’ identity because they identified themselves as such when they began to threaten him. [ 9 ] [NAME] alleged that he owed the ELN 80 million Colombian pesos, of which he had paid back 10,000 Colombian pesos. B. The Basis of Claim [ 10 ] [NAME] and the remainder of the Applicants had legal representation when they prepared and submitted their [NAME] forms and [NAME]’s accompanying narrative on September 21, 2022, two months after [NAME]’s PoE interview. [ 11 ] [NAME] alleged that he and the other Applicants fled to Canada because their lives were— and remain—at serious risk in Colombia from a paramilitary group known as the “[NAME]” ( Aguilas Negras ). [NAME] alleged that he and his family come from a very marginalized neighbourhood in Bogotá called “Las Cruses” , known for its prevalence of social problems and crime, as well as for the presence of criminal and paramilitary groups. [NAME] alleged that he stopped attending school after the 9 th grade because he had to financially support his family. He did so by selling clothes in the center of the city. [ 12 ] [NAME] alleged that in September 2019, he borrowed 40 million Colombian pesos (approximately 12,000 CAD at the time) at a 20 % interest rate from an unnamed lender [[NAME]]. [NAME] alleged that he gave the [NAME] his personal information, including his address. [NAME] had been making biweekly loan payments of 500,000 pesos until the government imposed restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The payments were made to a tall man on a motorcycle who wore a helmet and did not let [NAME] see his face. [ 13 ] The COVID-19 restrictions pushed [NAME] and his family into further financial strain. He alleged that he did not make a payment against his loan for a period of six months. He alleged having received several telephone calls asking for the payment of the money owed. He also alleged receiving threats that he and his family would be killed if he did not repay the loan soon. [ADDRESS] observes that [NAME] did not identify the caller in his [NAME]. [ 14 ] Once COVID-19 restrictions were eased in or about October 2020, [NAME] resumed his business activity. [NAME] claims he paid 350,000 pesos rather than 500,000 pesos biweekly for the next 12 months because his financial institution would not allow him to pay the full 500,000 pesos on a bi-weekly basis during that time. [ 15 ] [NAME] claimed that he received several telephone calls from an unknown number on September 18, 2021. He answered one of the calls. He alleged that what he heard on the call was an [NAME] voice that threatened him to repay the money owed, or else he and his family members would all be shot. [NAME] stopped sending his children to school after the call and began selling his wares at a different location. [ 16 ] [NAME] alleged that he found a pamphlet in his home on October 10, 2021. He alleged that the pamphlet more or less said that if he did not repay what he owed, a grenade would be put inside his house to kill its occupants. [NAME] and his family fled to his mother’s house, two hours of travel away from their home. A short time later, [NAME] and his family returned to their home, and he eventually began selling wares on the street again. [ 17 ] On November 25, 2021, when [NAME] arrived at his home, he observed that the front door was open. He saw graffiti on the walls inside. The graffiti message was that [NAME] persons would kill them all. [ 18 ] The Applicants fled Colombia. They assert that they cannot return to Colombia because the paramilitaries have put their lives at serious risk, and they believe that the paramilitaries will harm them if they are returned to Colombia. C. Updated Narrative dated October 29, 2024 [ 19 ] The Applicants updated their common [NAME] narrative under [NAME]’s name on October 29, 2024, more than two years after the date of their original [NAME] narrative. [ 20 ] Without being exhaustive, they added the following allegations: a) [NAME]’s [NAME] arrived in the municipality of Yacopi, a 6-hour drive from Bogotá, one month before [NAME] and his family arrived there after they fled their home in Bogotá. The updated narrative does not specify when the [NAME] or [NAME] and his family fled to Yacopi; b) While in Yacopi, [NAME] and others (unspecified) spoke by telephone with some of their acquaintances who continued to work in the locale where [NAME] used to sell his wares. These acquaintances told [NAME] that individuals had asked about [NAME] and his family’s whereabouts on multiple occasions; c) Knowing that persons were asking about their whereabouts caused [NAME] and his family to be concerned about updating their citizenship cards to reflect that they were now in Yacopi. They were concerned that they could be tracked to Yacopi; d) Their concerns about being tracked to Yacopi through their citizenship cards caused [NAME] and his family to leave Colombia on December 25, 2021. They fled to the United States of America [USA] and remained there until July 2022. They then fled to Canada; e) In February 2022, while some of the Applicants were in the USA, the [NAME] called her father and disclosed to him that she and her family had been threatened by paramilitaries in Colombia and that the threats were the reason they fled; f) Several other family members of various degrees of closeness to the Applicants had been confronted and beaten by [NAME] paramilitaries who conveyed the message that they continued to look for [NAME] and to seek payment from him, and that they would kill [NAME] and his family if they returned to Colombia; and, g) It appeared to the Applicants that [NAME]’s refusal to pay the money demanded has triggered a highly personalized vendetta against their family. [ 21 ] The Applicants explained in their updated narrative that they were proceeding with the update because a) it had been some time since they arrived in Canada; b) they had been “extremely rushed” to complete their original [NAME] forms; and c) the hearing of their claims was approaching and they wished to add details “which are relevant”. [ 22 ] The updated narrative was drafted by [NAME], an employee of the Applicants’ solicitor of record’s firm, and interpreted to the Applicants prior to their signature on October 29, 2024. D. Second Updated Narrative dated January 6, 2025 [ 23 ] [NAME] delivered a second updated narrative on January 6, 2025. This updated narrative was submitted after the first day of the hearing before [NAME] and prior to the second day of hearing. The allegations contained in the January 6, 2025, updated narrative are reproduced below: Many members of our family have faced threats from various paramilitary groups in Colombia. The reality is that all of us were involved in informal commerce in downtown Bogotá, including my sister [NAME]. We have all been targeted by the [NAME], a paramilitary group with a complex structure. This group operates under various factions, and many different individuals use the same name, making it easier for them to target and harm Colombians without leaving clear traces or being easily identified. [NAME], in particular, was threatened by individuals linked to this group. We believe these individuals communicate within their network and give orders to harm members of our family. Due to our poverty and lack of higher education, it is difficult for us to fully understand and express how the [NAME] operate. We suspect that our family was targeted by this group, for reasons we are still trying to understand. Given the widespread influence of this group, they likely knew [NAME] was my sister and used this information to threaten us. [NAME] was attacked in October 2022, and again in November 2023, which we believe are direct consequences of our refusal to comply with their demands. […] […] In our initial narrative, we stated that on November 25. 2021. I fled with my family to [NAME]’s farm in Yacopi, Cundinamarca but the reality is that only [NAME] and the children made it there on the 26. That day when my family and I came home, I told [NAME] to take the children and immediately just leave and go to the bus station and leave for the farm. I stayed a few more minutes as I was trying to take just a few clothing and our documents knowing that most likely we would never return. New Information that I was too traumatized to disclose before I want to disclose something that I tried hard to block from my mind and I coped by trying to forget it and pretend it did not happen. I did not disclose this to my lawyer before as I try not to think about it and talk about it, I have been so terrified and traumatized. I happened to mention it to one of my lawyer’s Spanish speaking staff who is Colombian and knows the awful things that the paramilitaries do to Colombians. His name is [NAME] and over the Christmas holidays while my lawyer was away, I came into her office and I met [NAME]. We began talking and when I started crying about what happened to me in Colombia he urged me to tell him everything and not to be afraid. Little by little I disclosed the details below and with [NAME]’s support and urging I am disclosing this for the first time. While looking for the documents approximately 20 to 30 minutes after [NAME] left with the children, two individuals broke into my house again. I was terrified as the individuals forced me to get into a black truck where 2 more individuals were waiting. Once inside of the vehicle they put a black capucha (like a black face covering) on my head so I could not see where they were taking me. I could only hear the sound of what seemed like a walkie-talkie (radio). I only heard when one of the individuals said my commander I got him . I lost the sense of time, but it seemed very far from Bogotá. The [NAME] tied me by the feet and hands and after an hour they got me out of the vehicle and left me on the floor, after a moment the [NAME] took off my hood. A man who did not identify himself but told me that he was one of the [NAME] wearing military pants with a verte shirt and rubber boots asked me if I wanted to save my family from being killed. I was very scared, and I said yes. When I looked around. I saw many mountains and children between about 10 or 14 years old. The children were dressed in military clothes and were being trained. It looked like it was a training camp. The man told me that my task would be to bring/recruit children from the poor areas of the city into the ranks of the paramilitaries and that they were going to give me 15 million pesos to give/ distribute among some poor families to convince them to hand over one of their children and that in exchange for that the paramilitaries would send them 1.5 million pesos a month and groceries so that no one in the family would go hungry. As a poor person and a father of three [NAME] children, it filled me with a lot of terror to see that children had been abducted and were trafficked. I am pretty sure that these children are also being sexually exploited. Colombia is famous for sexual exploitation of children, and I did not want to be part of it. A movie named Sound of Freedom was made based on the sexual exploitation of children in Colombia. We have heard of the movie but we are too traumatized to watch it. The man told me that if I didn't cooperate, he had no choice but to kill me right then and there and the rest of my family. Out of fear and dread I told him if I would help him, as I had no choice. The [NAME] put a hood back on and took me to mv house and left me 15 million pesos in a big envelope and they said they would return. I was very scared and I went quickly to my [NAME]'s house. When I arrived, I confessed to [NAME] and her parents what had happened to me. I decided to use the 15 million pesos and escape from Colombia on December 25, 2021. If we were to return, the risks are very real and serious, as the paramilitaries would see us as betraying them. What fills me with terror is the knowledge that I was shown their child trafficking sites and given knowledge of what they are doing to young, innocent poor Colombian children. We fear being killed to silence us. We cannot live safely anywhere in Colombia as the paramilitaries are powerful and have ties with many in high positions. [...]

II. The Decision [ 24 ] [NAME] heard the Applicants’ evidence and argument on November 8, 2024, and January 16, 2025. [ 25 ] [NAME] considered the evidence led before it, as well as the allegations set out in the Applicants’ [NAME] forms and twice updated narrative. [NAME] rejected the Applicants’ refugee claims. [NAME] concluded that the presumption of truthfulness that applied to [NAME] and the Applicants had been rebutted due to the numerous negative credibility findings it made against them. [ 26 ] [NAME] found that the Applicants had not established that [NAME] borrowed money from the [NAME] or that the Applicants were being pursued by the [NAME]. [NAME] has also found the Applicants’ documentary evidence was insufficient to overcome its credibility concerns or to establish the Applicants’ allegations. [ 27 ] [NAME] found the Applicants’ testimony lacked credibility due to: a) the late disclosure of [NAME]’s alleged abduction by the [NAME]; b) [NAME]’s testimony that his family had become a “military target” of the [NAME]; c) the inconsistencies and discrepancies between [NAME]’s PoE interview and subsequent [NAME] narrative and amendments thereto; d) [NAME]’s failure to establish that his circumstances are connected to his sister [NAME]’s accepted refugee claim; and, e) the supporting documents produced were not sufficient to overcome the cumulative credibility concerns. A. The alleged abduction [ 28 ] [NAME] found that [NAME]’s statements in his second updated narrative dated January 6, 2025, that he was abducted by members of the [NAME] on November 25, 2021, and told to recruit children as opposed to being with his spouse and children at his [NAME]’s home as indicated in his original narrative was not credible. The alleged abduction was not mentioned in the Applicants’ original narrative, in their first updated narrative dated more than two years after they signed their first narrative, or during their first hearing at [NAME] on November 8, 2024, despite the panel having provided [NAME] and the Applicants with an opportunity to provide further information that was not discussed after completing its questions. [ 29 ] While the [NAME] stated that it was sympathetic to [NAME]’s explanation that he had not disclosed the kidnapping earlier because he did not want to remember the event and wanted to erase it from his memory, it remained that there was an expectation that refugee claimants would inform the panel of crucial details for seeking protection in Canada. [ 30 ] [NAME] considered that the alleged abduction was material to the claim as it significantly altered the Applicants’ narrative and significantly increased their risks if it were to be believed. After summarizing the various narrative elements and testimony given by [NAME] with respect to the actual amount of the loan, his whereabouts on the day that the alleged abduction took place, and the fact that the only direct interaction [NAME] had with his agent of harm was during the alleged abduction, but never before, [NAME] found that it would have been reasonable [NAME] to have mentioned the abduction in their prior narratives. [NAME] drew a negative inference from the omission and found that it significantly undermined the Applicants’ credibility regarding their experiences with the [NAME], including their allegation that [NAME] owes the [NAME] money. B. Being a “military target” [ 31 ] [NAME] testified during the hearing that he had been told that his family had become a “military target” for the [NAME] because of the outstanding loan and the [NAME] wanting to instill fear in other business people. “Military target” is a specific expression of threat used when a target is to be killed within a 24 to 72-hour deadline of being marked as such. [NAME] contradicted himself later in his testimony that he had not been told that he or his family had become “military targets” . He simply assumed it to be case. [ 32 ] Given the deadly ramifications of being a “military target” , [NAME] reasoned that it would have been reasonable for such an allegation to be included in [NAME]’s [NAME] form or in his prior narratives given that it directly relates to the level of danger the Applicants faced in Colombia. [NAME]’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for omitting this type of allegation from his [NAME] form and prior narratives led [NAME] to draw a negative inference. [ 33 ] [NAME] considered that [NAME]’s omission of the “military target” allegation from his [NAME] and updated narratives combined with the contradictions during his testimony on this issue demonstrated that [NAME]’s testimony was evolving and changing over time. [NAME] drew another negative inference against [NAME] with respect to his allegations and testimony that the [NAME] were pursuing him and other Applicants for an outstanding loan. [NAME]’s overall credibility was detrimentally affected as a result. C. Port of Entry, Basis of Claim and testimonial inconsistencies [ 34 ] The Applicants’ claims were initially based on events related to [NAME]’s loan and his repayment of the said loan. [NAME] specifically and without question identified his agents of harm upon his arrival in Canada during his PoE interview as being the ELN [the [NAME]] paramilitary group and not the [NAME]. [NAME] did not mention the [NAME] at all during his PoE interview. The inconsistencies in [NAME]’s allegations were put to him during [NAME] hearing. He stated that maybe the ELN’s self-identification as his lender and agent of harm was something that just passed him. [NAME] did not find [NAME]’s explanation of the changing identity of his agents of harm to be persuasive. [NAME] drew additional negative inferences with respect to [NAME]’s allegations regarding whom he alleges he borrowed money from and that the Applicants were threatened by the [NAME]. [ 35 ] [NAME] also drew negative inferences from [NAME]’s allegations in his PoE interview that the ELN had informed him that he and his family would be recruited if they did not repay the loan he took out. These allegations were entirely omitted from the [NAME], the updated narratives, and [NAME]’s testimony before the panel. [ 36 ] [NAME] found that the discrepancies between [NAME]’s statements during his PoE interview and the allegations made elsewhere in the proceeding significantly undermined the Applicants’ credibility regarding whether [NAME] borrowed money from the [NAME] or that all of the Applicants are being pursued by the [NAME] as a result of that outstanding loan. D. [NAME]’s accepted refugee claim [ 37 ] The Applicants relied on [NAME]’s sister [NAME]’s accepted refugee claim as a basis for their own claims. [NAME] considered the documentary evidence and [NAME] reasons from [NAME]’s matter as produced before it and noted that the two matters were factually quite distinguishable. [NAME] also found that [NAME]’s testimony regarding events that were recounted in [NAME]’s proceeding was inconsistent with the evidence presented in that proceeding. [NAME] testified at [NAME]’s hearing and her testimony was inconsistent with [NAME]’s allegations and narrative with respect to his loan and the [NAME]. [NAME] found that [NAME]’s case and her testimony before [NAME] were not enough to establish a connection between the circumstances of her proceeding and the Applicants’ alleged experiences with the [NAME]. E. The documentary evidence was insufficient [ 38 ] [NAME] considered the content of a criminal complaint that had been made by [NAME]’s father. The content of the complaint was inconsistent with [NAME]’s allegations, written narratives and testimony. Furthermore, [NAME] had taken pains to allege that his father was mentally unwell. The father was not called as witness despite being in Canada. [NAME] therefore gave the complaint no weight. [ 39 ] [NAME] also considered a letter from [NAME]’s father that reiterated much of what had been included in the criminal complaint he had filed, but with some of the inconsistencies noted in the criminal complaint. [NAME] gave the letter little weight in establishing that [NAME] or any of the Applicants had borrowed money from the [NAME] or were being pursued by them. [ 40 ] [NAME] considered a letter from the [NAME], which includes a statement from [NAME]’s father-in-law and the Applicant, [NAME]. [NAME] found that the content of the letter was premised on the alleged loan from the [NAME]. The panel found that the letter was insufficient to overcome its credibility concerns and accordingly gave it little weight in establishing the existence of the loan or [NAME]’s alleged pursuit by the [NAME]. [ 41 ] Finally, the several photographs provided by the Applicants depicted various bodily injuries but were devoid of context. [NAME] gave no weight to them in establishing that the Applicants are being pursued by the [NAME].

III. Issues [ 42 ] The Applicant submits that there are four issues before the Court: a) the applicable standard of review; b) whether [NAME]’s credibility assessments were flawed and most unreasonable; c) whether [NAME] unreasonably transferred its negative credibility findings to all of the Applicants, including the [NAME] children; and d) whether [NAME] failed to conduct a risk assessment. [ 43 ] The Respondent does not take issue with the Applicants’ submitted list of issues.

IV. Arguments and Analysis A. The standard of review is the reasonableness standard [ 44 ] The parties argued in their memorandum of argument that the applicable standard of review is the reasonableness standard as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME], 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ]. I agree with the parties that the applicable standard of review is the presumptive standard of reasonableness. [ 45 ] On a reasonableness review, the reviewing court considers the reasons provided by the administrative decision-maker and asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness (i.e., justification, transparency and intelligibility) in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision ( [NAME] at para 99). [ADDRESS]’s role is not to reweigh, reassess or second-guess the evidence ( [NAME] at para 124; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General ), 2021 FCA 237 at para 3). [ 46 ] The challenging party bears the burden of establishing that the decision under review is unreasonable due to “sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” ( [NAME] at para 100). This is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error” ( [NAME] at para 102). Rather, where “there is [a] line of analysis within the given reasons that could reasonably lead the tribunal from the evidence before it to the conclusion at which it arrived” the reviewing court will not intervene ( [NAME] at para 102). [ADDRESS] will interfere with the decision under review where it is satisfied that the shortcomings or flaws relied on by the party challenging the decision are more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits ( [NAME] at para 100). They must be sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100). B. [NAME]’s credibility findings were reasonable [ 47 ] The Applicants argue that [NAME]’s credibility findings are unreasonable because they were based solely on [NAME]’s PoE interview, failed to adopt a trauma-informed approach, and did not consider [NAME]’s explanations for his evidence or the discrepancies within it. The Applicants rely on a number of decisions of this Court to support their arguments. (1) The Point-of-Entry interview notes [ 48 ] The Applicants argue that [NAME] only considered [NAME]’s PoE interview notes as the basis for making negative credibility findings. The argument presented is factually flawed because even a narrow reading of the Decision shows that the RAD considered [NAME]’s PoE notes along with [NAME]’s [NAME], narrative, updated narrative and further updated narrative, as well as his testimony before [NAME] in coming to its credibility findings. [ 49 ] [NAME]’s credibility findings that were informed by [NAME]’s PoE interview notes are consistent with this Court’s jurisprudence that one or more material omissions and inconsistencies among an applicant’s PoE interview notes, [NAME] narrative and oral testimony at an RPD hearing can properly form the basis of an adverse credibility finding where the omission(s) or inconsistency(ies) is or are central to the claim ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 583 at para 24; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1373 at paras 51 to 57; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 38 at para 39). [ 50 ] In this case, [NAME] had specifically and explicitly identified the Applicants’ lender and agent of harm during his PoE interview as being the ELN and that his agent of harm and pursuer was the ELN because they identified themselves to him as such. [NAME] later stated that his agents of harm were the [NAME], despite also stating that he had taken out a loan from an [NAME] and received threats from persons who remained [NAME] but were believed by [NAME] to be the [NAME]. The inconsistencies noted by [NAME] are central to the Applicants’ claim as they bear on whether a loan was taken out by [NAME], the identity of the lender, and the identity of the pursuers. [ 51 ] The Applicants’ argument does not establish that [NAME]’s credibility findings were unreasonable in light of [NAME]’s PoE interview notes. (2) A trauma-informed approach was not required [ 52 ] The Applicants argue that [NAME] did not meaningfully grapple with [NAME]’s trauma related explanations for having failed to disclose his November 2021 abduction by the [NAME]. They contend that this failure renders [NAME]’s credibility finding regarding the alleged abduction unreasonable. In support of this position, the Applicants rely on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1256 at para 3 [ [NAME] ], [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 871 at para 43 [ [NAME] ], [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1269 at para 23 [ [NAME] ], [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 116 at para 12 [ [NAME] ], and [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 401 at para 26 [ [NAME] ]. [ 53 ] The Applicants’ argument is based on a recasting of the evidence led before [NAME] to attempt to have these decisions apply. The decisions relied upon consider claimant explanations for omissions or evolutions in their narratives, as well as how such omissions or evolutions should be considered in light of a claimant’s cultural or psychological background. There was no objective evidence of trauma or significant emotional distress led to explain [NAME]’s late disclosure of the alleged abduction other than his own statements. He stated that he did not want to remember the event and sought to erase it from his memory because he had seen a lot of things he did not wish to recall and remained traumatized and terrified. [NAME] also testified that he disclosed the information between hearing dates to his counsel’s employee because the employee is Colombian and speaks Spanish, which made him feel more comfortable. These explanations were considered by [NAME] and were grappled with, although not in the manner desired by the Applicants. Their attempt at recasting [NAME]’s evidence fails. [ 54 ] [NAME] is distinguishable on the facts. In [NAME], the claimant had led ample evidence of a culture of silence that affected the claimant and explained many of his actions. There is no similar type of evidence led by the Applicants in this case. [ 55 ] [NAME] is equally distinguishable on the facts. The claimant in [NAME] had led evidence that corroborated the offered explanation, and that corroborating evidence had not been considered by the decision-maker. There was no evidence led in this case to corroborate the explanation provided by [NAME]. [ 56 ] [NAME] is also distinguishable on the facts. [NAME] was concerned with shame as an explanation under the IRB’s Chairperson Guidelines 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution [ Gender Guidelines ] as to why a [NAME] would not have obtained a medical report after a sexual assault. It also addressed [NAME] decision to ignore relevant proven facts in favour of a fictionalized caricature of trauma. [NAME] does not apply here. [ 57 ] [NAME] cuts against the Applicants’ argument when correctly read. In [NAME], the Court found that a decision maker should not be quick to apply North American logic and reasoning to the claimant's behaviour. Instead, consideration should be given to the claimant's age, cultural background and previous social experiences. Likewise, a lack of coherence or consistency in the claimant's testimony should be viewed in light of the claimant's psychological condition, especially where it has been medically documented. In this case, however, no documentation had been led with respect to [NAME]’s alleged psychological condition. Furthermore, no evidence had been led that [NAME] suffered from any psychological condition until a few days before the last day of hearing before [NAME]. Therefore, [NAME] does not apply to suggest that [NAME]’s credibility findings are unreasonable. [ 58 ] Finally, [NAME] concerned the application of the IRB’s Gender Guidelines and the need to recognize that i ndividuals’ experiences of the events that underlie their claims for protection can be shaped by cultural norms or backgrounds that are not shared by the decision-maker, especially in hearings where women are advancing claims based on gender-related persecution. There are no allegations of gender-based persecution in this case. [NAME] does not apply. [ 59 ] [NAME] considered [NAME]’s explanation and acknowledged that claimants may not wish to think of or discuss certain events that they experienced and that are crucial elements of their claims. [NAME] grappled with [NAME]’s explanation and new allegations in light of his other allegations as made through his [NAME], narrative, updated narratives, and his testimony before [NAME]. The RDP also considered how the new allegations were inconsistent with essential details of his narrative as updated until the second hearing day, and that the new allegations arose between evidentiary hearing days and after [NAME] and other Applicants had been provided with the opportunity to testify and to add additional testimony or documents to complete their evidence in support of their claims but declined to do so. [ 60 ] [NAME] was appropriately sensitive to [NAME]’s explanations given the context, the evidence led, and the absence of reliable and non self-serving evidence of trauma. The Applicants have not established that the RAD should have conducted itself differently in light of the evidence or that its failure to do so makes the Decision unreasonable. (3) The narrative updates were fairly considered [ 61 ] The Applicants rely on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 631 at para 8 [ [NAME] ]. They argue that this decision assists them through the proposition that claimants are permitted to provide further details at their hearings, need not include every single potentially material fact in their Basis of Claim and narratives, and that the decision-maker acts unreasonably if they consider that the addition of details through an amended narrative suggests that the initial narrative was not credible. [ 62 ] [NAME] as cited by the Applicants does not stand for the proposition they argue. The decision is also distinguishable. [ 63 ] In [NAME], a claimant had included allegations in his narrative regarding a stabbing incident at the hands of [NAME] in 1999 that supported his claim. The claimant subsequently amended his narrative to include details of the injuries sustained in the stabbing incident, and that the Turkish police had refused to lay charges in relation to the stabbing. The decision-maker found that the applicant had not adequately explained why these details had been omitted in the first place and drew a negative inference and concluded that the attack had not occurred. [ADDRESS] found that the decision-maker’s credibility finding was unreasonable because the amended narrative provided additional details of an already alleged event. [ADDRESS] found that negating the occurrence of a crucial event alleged in the first narrative because of the provision of additional details that elaborate on the elements already alleged was unreasonable. [ 64 ] The Applicants’ case here is factually very different from the case in [NAME] . The narrative updates in this case, and particularly the last update, introduced entirely new bases of claim that had not been previously alleged or disclosed, as well as new details that were inconsistent with previously alleged details. [NAME] does not apply. (4) Deference is generally due on credibility findings [ 65 ] Madam Justice Vanessa Rochester, as she then was, explained in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1765 at para 10, that a reviewing court owes deference to [NAME] and the RAD and their credibility findings as follows: [9] The central issue is the RAD’s determination as to [NAME]’s credibility. [10] Credibility determinations are part of the fact-finding process, and are afforded significant deference upon review ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 966 at para 29 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 721 at para 35 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1160 at para 6). Such determinations by [NAME] and the RAD demand a high level of judicial deference and should only be overturned “in the clearest of cases” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 720 at para 12). Credibility determinations have been described as lying within “the heartland of the discretion of triers of fact […] and cannot be overturned unless they are perverse, capricious or made without regard to the evidence” ( [NAME] at para 29; [NAME] at para 35; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 644 at para 22, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 165 at para 9). [ 66 ] The Applicants have not demonstrated that [NAME]’s credibility findings fall within the clearest of cases to be overturned. I find that there is no demonstrated basis for this Court to interfere with [NAME]’s credibility findings. C. [NAME] reasonably transferred its negative credibility findings to all of the Applicants, including the [NAME] children regarding the claims advanced [ 67 ] It is well-established law that a refugee claimant has the evidentiary burden of establishing the facts that give rise to a claim under section 96 or section 97 IRPA for refugee protection ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2005 FCA 1). This extends to applicants who are minors. [ 68 ] It is equally well-established law that claimants have the burden of establishing a link between general country conditions and their specific circumstances if they wish to rely on country condition evidence in support of their claims ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 426 at para 19 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 331 at para 17 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2007 FC 83 at para 21 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Minster of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 409 at para 28 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 808 at paras 21 and 22 [ [NAME] ]). [ 69 ] The Applicants cite no applicable jurisprudence in support of their argument that [NAME] unreasonably transferred its negative credibility findings to all of the Applicants, including the [NAME] children. [ 70 ] The Applicants chose to present a single narrative as the sole and governing narrative for each of their respective claim, regardless of their personal characteristics and/or relationship to the facts and issues. That single narrative was [NAME]’s narrative as attached to his original [NAME] form and its subsequent updates. [ 71 ] The [NAME]’s [NAME] form set out that she relied exclusively and completely on the narrative attached to her form as the basis of her refugee claim. The narrative that was attached was [NAME]’s narrative which titled “Narrative of [NAME] and Family” . The Applicant [NAME]’s [NAME] form also sets out that she relied exclusively and completely on the narrative attached to her form as the basis of her refugee claim. The narrative that was attached was [NAME]’s narrative. The same is true for the [NAME] and [NAME]. The same is also true for the Applicant [NAME]. [ 72 ] The [NAME] acknowledged that this was the case when it noted that, “the claimants’ allegations are fully set out in their Basis of Claim ([NAME]) forms, their updated narrative, and a subsequent updated narrative”. [ 73 ] The corollary of the Applicants’ choice to have their allegations set out in a single narrative, updated as it may have been, is that no Applicant other than [NAME] offered a personal narrative or individualized allegations in support of each of their respective claim. Despite being asked several times during [NAME] hearing if they had information to add to [NAME]’s testimony, none provided further evidence to substantiate their refugee claims. [ 74 ] Given these circumstances it is logical and rational for [NAME] to make its credibility findings on the sole narrative provided. Since all Applicants explicitly relied upon this single narrative as the basis for each of their respective claim, the findings related to [NAME]’s narrative properly apply to all of them. D. [NAME] conducted a risk assessment pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA [ 75 ] The Applicants argue that [NAME] failed to conduct risk assessments for the [NAME] despite having an obligation to do so. They contend that the assessment should have addressed the risk of the [NAME] being forcibly recruited by armed groups in Colombia. In support of this, the Applicants relied on general country condition evidence regarding the recruitment of minors by paramilitary groups. No effort appears to have been made by the Applicants to link the [NAME]’ personal circumstances to the country condition evidence other than by asserting that the [NAME] are from Colombia and are minors. [ 76 ] The [NAME] did not allege that they are at risk of forced recruitment by any paramilitary group in Colombia. They also did not lead any evidence that that they had been approached to be recruited, or that they exhibited the personal characteristics of minors at risk of forced recruitment in Colombia as outlined in the country condition evidence. [NAME] assessed the [NAME]’ forward-looking risk of forced recruitment in light of the content of the objective country condition evidence and of the record generally. It concluded that the [NAME] did not fit the profiles for heightened risks of recruitment by criminal groups in Colombia. [ 77 ] [NAME] determined that the [NAME] did not face a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 of the IRPA or personalized risks under section 97 of the IRPA . [NAME] may be criticized for not articulating its analysis more explicitly in reaching its conclusion that the [NAME] had not established their claims under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA , the Applicants have not demonstrated, and I cannot find, that the Decision is unreasonable in light of the record. [NAME]’s reasoning is clear and justified when one considers the record as a whole. [ 78 ] The Applicants argue that [NAME] failed to conduct risk assessments for the [NAME] Applicants despite having an obligation to do so. The Decision and the record reflect otherwise. [ 79 ] [NAME] conducted analyses under section 96 and section 97 IRPA regarding the [NAME]’ claims based on their gender and reports of violence or persecution by paramilitary groups. It acknowledged that women in Colombia can be victims of crime, including sexual violence, but that there was insufficient evidence to establish that women are targeted simply because of their gender. [NAME] also concluded there was an absence of specific evidence pointing to individualized factors that might aggravate the [NAME]’ risks of gender-based violence from paramilitary or criminal groups in Colombia. [NAME] found that the [NAME] had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish a serious possibility of persecution based upon their gender. [NAME] also concluded that the [NAME] had not established that their removal would expose them personally to a danger of torture or to a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment under section 97 of the IRPA based on their personal profiles. The Applicants have not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable with respect to these analyses in light of the record. [ 80 ] The [NAME] also made no effort to establish a link between general country condition evidence and their specific circumstances. [NAME] may be criticized for not articulating its analysis more explicitly in reaching its conclusion that the [NAME] had not established their claims under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA , the Applicants have not demonstrated that there was evidence before [NAME] that could have led it to conclude that any of the [NAME] were persons in need of protection under either sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA . I cannot find that the Decision is unreasonable in this regard. [ 81 ] The Applicants have not established the basis of the claim they had advanced because of the negative credibility findings [NAME] made. [NAME] did not act unreasonably by not engaging in a separate and distinct analysis under section 96 or section 97 of the IRPA with respect to the specific claims based on the loan taken out by [NAME] from the [NAME] as there was no evidentiary basis for the alleged risk. In the circumstances, the negative credibility findings were sufficient to foreclose a section 96 or section 97 analysis focussed on the alleged loan ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2014 FC 102 at paras 41 to 46). The Applicants have not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable on this basis.

V. Conclusions [ 82 ] The Applicants have not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable on any of the grounds that they have alleged and argued. Considered in light of the record and the law, I find that the Decision and its findings are reasonable and justified. [ 83 ] The Applicants’ application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. [ 84 ] The parties have not suggested that a question of general importance to be certified arises from the facts of this proceeding. I agree with the parties in this regard. No question of general importance will be certified.

JUDGMENT in IMM-5617-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Applicants’ application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to be certified. No costs shall be awarded to any party. “Benoit M. Duchesne” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-5617-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] ET AL. v. MCI PLACE OF HEARING: toronto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: february 25, 2026 judgment AND

REASONS: duchesne, j. DATED: march 20, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent