Docket: IMM-5112-25
Citation: 2026 FC 555
Toronto, Ontario, April 27, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NILSON ANDRES PEREZ HERRERA
EYLIN VALENTINA PEREZ ARDILA
ANDREINA ARDILA ACOSTA
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] Nilson Andres Perez Herrera [the Principal Applicant], Eylin Valentina Perez Ardila and Andreina Ardila Acosta [collectively, the Applicants], seek judicial review of a decision [Decision] of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] refusing their refugee claims. The Applicants’ claims are based on their fear of persecution by the paramilitary group, Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia [AGC], who extorted the Principal Applicant at his place of business in Cúcuta, Colombia and threatened him and his family when he stopped meeting the AGC’s demands. The RPD dismissed the Applicants’ refugee claims as it concluded that the Applicants have an internal flight alternative [IFA]. The RPD found that, while the AGC had the means to track the Applicants to the IFA, the Applicants had not shown that the AGC are motivated to do so.
[2] The Applicants submit that the RPD erred in relying on general and equivocal objective country condition evidence describing the profile of targets that criminal organizations are more likely to pursue without explaining why such evidence was to be preferred over specific and actual evidence that the AGC had threatened to track the Applicants anywhere in Colombia. For the detailed reasons that follow, I agree. Accordingly, this application is allowed, and the matter shall be remitted back to the RPD for redetermination.
II. Facts
A. Background
[3] The AGC is a paramilitary group that operates throughout Colombia with strongholds along most of the coasts, including where the IFA is located.
[4] Beginning in January 2023, the AGC extorted the Principal Applicant while he was working as the manager of a textile company that manufactured jeans in Cúcuta, Colombia. The Principal Applicant managed to pay the monthly extortion until December 2023, when the AGC’s extortion demands increased and the business took a downturn.
[5] The Principal Applicant received a phone call in February 2024, in which the caller threatened to kill him if he did not pay. When he did not meet their demands, he was beaten by four men on March 30, 2024, who gave him ten days to pay and warned him about “the consequences”
of not doing so. This time the AGC members also threatened his family.
[6] The Applicants left Cúcuta on April 3, 2024, and travelled to Bogotá to live with the Principal Applicant’s mother-in-law. After being there just eight days, the Principal Applicant says that he received a phone call from someone with the AGC [the April Call]. He described the April Call in his narrative as follows: “they called me and told me that they already knew where I was with my family and that no matter where I hid they were going to find me.”
[7] The Principal Applicant filed an online report with the Attorney General but received no response.
[8] The Applicants left Colombia on April 12, 2024, and travelled through Mexico and the United States prior to arriving in Canada.
[9] Four or five months prior to the RPD hearing, the Principal Applicant’s friend was approached by men inquiring about the Principal Applicant’s business. The Principal Applicant says that he has also received calls while he has been in Canada, which he did not answer.
B. The RPD Hearing and the Decision
[10] The Applicants testified at the RPD hearing that they would be killed by the AGC if they were to return to Colombia. According to the Principal Applicant, it is the “policy”
of groups like the AGC not to forgive those who have crossed them. The Applicants explained that they did not consider relocating elsewhere in Colombia because there is a nation-wide lack of security and the AGC maintains a database of information about individuals across the country and can locate their targets.
[11] The RPD dismissed the Applicants’ claims finding that the Applicants have a viable IFA. The RPD did not consider the Applicants to have shown that the AGC has a continuing motivation to pursue them. The RPD noted that although the Principal Applicant received phone calls, he did not answer the calls and therefore could not be certain they were from the AGC. The Principal Applicant’s wife and other family members had not been contacted, nor had his mother-in-law. The RPD acknowledged the evidence from the Principal Applicant that his friend reported having been contacted by some men about the closure of the textile company; however, the RPD did not consider this evidence to be determinative as it was a single, dated contact.
[12] The RPD also noted that the Applicants did not fit the profile of individuals likely to be tracked across the country by an organized crime group. The RPD relied on evidence from item 7.37 of the National Documentation Package, which is a “Response to Information Requests”
dated August 13, 2021 [RIR], providing country conditions in Colombia in response to a request made by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The RIR provided evidence as to the types of targets that criminal organizations in Colombia are motivated to track across the country. The RPD found that the Principal Applicant did not meet this profile.
[13] Additionally, the Member found that the Applicants had not shown that relocating to the IFA would be unreasonable in all the circumstances.
[14] The Applicants’ appeal to the RAD was dismissed pursuant to paragraph 110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 for lack of jurisdiction as the Applicants had entered Canada irregularly.
III. Preliminary Issue
[15] The Applicants have sought an extension of time to file their Notice of Application for Leave and Judicial Review, which was filed nine days after the deadline provided for under subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7. As the Order granting leave in this proceeding was silent on the issue and cannot be taken as having implicitly granted an extension, this Court may decide the issue (Deng Estate v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 59 at paras 16, 17).
[16] The extension sought is granted as the Respondent has consented and I find that the Applicants meet the test set out in Canada (Attorney General) v Hennelly 1999 CanLII 8190 (FCA) at paragraph 3.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[17] The parties submit that the applicable standard of review is that of reasonableness as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paragraphs 16-17 [Vavilov]. This Court must consider both the rationale and outcome of the Decision and assess its reasonableness considering the history and context of the proceedings in which they were rendered (Vavilov at paras 83 and 94). A reasonable decision is one based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis that is transparent, intelligible and justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker (Vavilov at paras 85, 99).
V. Analysis
[18] While the Applicants made a number of arguments as to why the Decision is unreasonable, I find that it is only necessary to address one of these arguments, which I consider to be dispositive.
[19] The Applicants submit that the RPD unreasonably relied on the RIR and failed to grapple with evidence that contradicts its conclusion on the issue of the AGC’s motivation to pursue the Applicants (Vavilov at para 126).
[20] The RIR is based on a telephone interview with a Senior Analyst from International Crisis Group and reads:
In a telephone interview with the Research Directorate, a senior analyst for Colombia at International Crisis Group stated that "[i]n general," criminal groups target those they see as an "annoyance" or "obstacle" to their economic goals in an area (Senior Analyst 8 July 2021). The same source provided an example, stating that the Gulf Clan "may target an entire village" if the community is on a "strategic" drug route (Senior Analyst 8 July 2021). Corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
[21] The Applicants submit that it was a reviewable error to rely on this generalized objective country condition evidence without explaining why it should be preferred over the specific and actual threat that the Principal Applicant received on the April Call. I agree. This type of error was criticized in Qaddafi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 629 [Qaddafi], in which Justice Russell held:
The threat was that the Principal Applicant would die because he had worked for the UN; it was not that he would die unless he ceased to work for the UN. Even if the Principal Applicant has not established that the threat was made by the Taliban, the threat to kill him was clearly made on the evidence. In other words, the Principal Applicant has been specifically targeted. There is no evidence to support that the agent of persecution does not intend to follow through on this threat because the Principal Applicant does not have a sufficient profile. He obviously had a sufficient profile to provoke the threat. Both tribunals are not sufficiently alive to this and discount the threat because the Principal Applicant has ceased to work for the UN so that the caller had achieved his objective. This is an unreasonable characterization of the nature of the threat. The evidence is that the caller told the Principal Applicant that his time had come to die (Qaddafi at para 76).
[22] The error is significant in this case because the RIR is neither specific to the AGC, nor is it definitive in its assessment of the types of individuals who will be tracked by criminal organizations. In the face of this equivocal evidence, it was incumbent on the RPD to address the April Call which provided a specific threat by the AGC to track the Applicants anywhere in Colombia. As the Applicants’ counsel put it: the RPD needed to say on what basis it found that the AGC “will not do what they say they are going to do.”
The RPD’s reliance on the RIR does not fill the obvious gap in justification.
[23] Counsel for the Respondent submits that the RPD did not err in relying on the RIR emphasizing that the RPD’s specific finding is that “the principal claimant was only targeted for extortion purposes”
and given that the textile company had closed, it was open to the RPD to find on the basis of the RIR that the Applicants did not meet the profile of persons criminal organizations like the AGC are motivated to track. The problem with this argument is that it is based on an oversimplification of the nature of the threat, an error the Court cautioned about making in Qaddafi. As counsel for the Applicants emphasized, the specific threats made to the Principal Applicant, included extortion threats as well as a threat that the Principal Applicant would suffer the consequences for not meeting the AGC’s extortion demands. The closure of the textile company is relevant to the former threat, but not the latter.
[24] The RPD’s failure to justify its reliance on the RIR in the face of the April Call is more than a minor misstep (Vavilov at para 100). This failure in justification is significant given the RPD’s acknowledgment not only that the AGC has the means to track the Applicants to the IFA, but that the AGC has a presence in the IFA. As the Supreme Court instructed in Vavilov, “[w]here the impact of a decision on an individual’s rights and interests is severe, the reasons provided to that individual must reflect the stakes”
(Vavilov at para 133).
VI. Conclusion
[25] As the Applicants have met their onus of showing that the Decision is unreasonable, this application is granted.
[26] No question for certification was raised by the parties, and I agree that none arise.
Email this Content