Docket: IMM-2555-25
Citation: 2026 FC 296
Ottawa, Ontario, March 4, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN: |
|
LARRY JAVIER CONSUEGRA PULIDO |
|
CAROL JOHANNA RAMOS ROMERO |
|
ISABELLA CONSUEGRA RAMOS |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] This is an application under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] for Leave and for Judicial Review of the Pre-removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] decision of Senior Immigration Officer [the Officer] dated October 29, 2024. The Officer determined that the Applicants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under section 96 or section 97 of the Act.
[2] The Applicants submit that the Officer unreasonably found that the Applicants had an available Internal Flight Alternative [IFA]. In addition, it is submitted that the Officer failed to hold a hearing as required in this case under section 167 of the Act, given the Officer’s credibility concerns and veiled credibility findings.
[3] The first issue to be assessed is on the standard of reasonableness. The last issue is on the correctness standard.
[4] The Officer found that the Applicants had an IFA in Sincelejo, Sucre, Colombia. It was acknowledged that the alleged agents of persecution, the National Liberation Army [ELN], was able to find the Applicants in the IFA if they were considered “high value”
but the Officer found that they had failed to establish that they met that profile:
From the submissions received I conclude that the applicants have not been able to establish that they are individuals who could have been identified by the ELN to be "high risk". In their submissions the applicants have staled that they were social activists and therefore were targeted by the ELN however their activities were not on a scale of a full time activist or NGO worker, as pointed out by the RPD member in their decision on the applicants' profile for being a possible target of the ELN. The applicants have tfailed to establish, with the evidence adduced, that they meet the profile.
[5] The Applicants point to country condition documentation that shows the ELN targets traitors, and they submit that it was a mistake for the Officer not to assess if the group would consider them to be such. However, did not raise the prospect of being perceived as traitors before the RPD nor in the PRRA application. The Applicants simply claimed to be humanitarian activists. The RPD found the Applicants were only people who “collected small donations of water, food and clothing and provided them to people living in poverty”
and so only had a profile as “people who volunteered a few times a month.”
[6] It is too late for the Applicants to now raise this suggestion in this application, and without evidence.
[7] The Applicants also submit that the Officer unreasonably assessed the evidence offered of their family being targeted in the IFA since they fled Colombia. The Officer did examine the evidence and assigned it little weight. It is not for this Court to make its own assessment of weight. In any event, I have reviewed the record and conclude that the Officer’s assessment of weight is reasonable given the evidence considered.
[8] The Applicants submit that the Officer made two veiled credibility findings in their reasons.
[9] The first is a suggestion that the Officer in noting that the email response by Colombian officials on September 4th, 2024, regarding a complaint made, shows that the Applicants must be lying about the complaint submitted by the principal applicant, Larry Javier Consuegra Pulido, on September 5th, 2024, one day after the officials’ email. I agree with the Respondent that the Officer simply remarked on the obvious discrepancy between the two dates and noted a lack of explanation for it:
There is no explanation provided on the discrepancies in the dates, on how a response to a complaint was received a day prior to the complaint.
[10] This is not a veiled credibility finding. It is simply a factual finding made with no reference to or suggestion of credibility. The irregularity was on the face of the document itself and built into it. The Officer did not go as far as suspecting the principal applicant’s honesty.
[11] The second passage, which the Applicants paint as a credibility finding is an observation about a 2023 denouncement filed by the mother in respect of items delivered to her house and threats made to her in Sincelejo in 2022. Thus, the Officer’s reasons noted that the denouncement in 2023 seemed to conflict with feelings expressed earlier about how authorities were in cahoots with violent groups, so it was pointless to file complaints:
This is also contrary to the previous submissions in that previous incidents were not reported, however this time both the incident in Sincelejo and the incident of receiving the flower and sympathy note were reported to the authorities. The applicants have not provided any explanation on why they chose to report these incidents to the authorities when previously they felt that the authorities and guerilla groups were in collusion and they could not seek state protection.
[12] Indeed, on its face, this does seem contrary to the Applicants’ earlier statement: “My mother was not able to report the break in, due to the corruption of the national police, where some police contacts are also known to work with the ELN.”
[13] The Officer does not suggest that this discrepancy shows that a lie is being told and that credibility is an issue. Rather, like the first statement of concern, the Officer is just raising an obvious point without assessment of its relevance. The apparent contradiction was not addressed by the Applicants in their submissions to the Officer, and will not now be entertained as it was not first put to the Officer.
[14] The Applicants have not shown that an oral hearing was warranted, nor that the decision under review was unreasonable. This application will be dismissed.
[15] No question was proposed for certification.
Email this Content