Date: 20261002

Docket: IMM-4715-25

Citation: 2026 FC 1222

Ottawa, Ontario, October 2, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

I. Overview

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a negative decision of an officer with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Officer”) of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) dated April 26, 2024, that determined that the Applicant is not a person in need of protection as defined in sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”) (the “Decision”).

[2] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable, because the reasons for the Decision were not transparent, intelligible and justified. The Applicant argues that the Officer failed to properly grapple with the objective evidence concerning the situation for Afro-Colombian people.

[3] The Respondent argues that the Decision is reasonable and that there was no breach of the duty of procedural fairness. The Respondent argues that the Officer considered the totality of the evidence and reasonably concluded that the Applicant was not a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

[4] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.

II. Background

[5] The Applicant is a citizen of Colombia.

[6] On September 17, 2022, the Applicant came to Canada and submitted a refugee claim.

[7] On September 28, 2022, the Minister suspended the Applicant’s refugee claim for the purpose of referral to the Immigration Division for an admissibility determination in respect of allegations of serious criminality.

[8] On November 15, 2022, a removal order for serious criminality was issued to the Applicant, rendering him ineligible for refugee protection.

[9] On June 19, 2023, the Applicant applied for a PRRA. In his PRRA submissions, the Applicant stated that he left Colombia and migrated to Chile for work. While in Chile, an organized crime group from Colombia threatened his life and forced the Applicant to transport drugs. He was arrested and detained by Chilean police and charged with drug trafficking. In September 2017, he accepted full guilt and was eventually deported to Colombia. The Applicant also states that on his return to Colombia he worked as an Uber driver and received threats from different organised crime groups and cartels, depending on where he was driving or operating, to pay extortion.

[10] In addition, the Applicant set out in his PRRA submissions that he was registered by the Colombia Victims Unit as a victim of forced displacement within Colombia. The Applicant argued that this did not come with real protection from Colombian authorities due to anti-Afro-Colombian racism.

[11] On April 26, 2024, the Applicant’s PRRA application was rejected. The reasons for the Decision state in part:

In sum, I find the applicant has presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason. I also find the applicant has presented insufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that [he] faces a personalized risk upon return to Colombia. I note that the evidentiary burden lies with the applicant and that he is required to provide evidence to substantiate the grounds of his application. While the applicant has not done so in this case, I find this is not an issue relating to his credibility. Rather, it is an issue of insufficient objective evidence to demonstrate that the applicant’s allegations of risk have been established on a balance of probabilities. I find the applicant is not a persons (sic) in need of protection as defined in section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

III. Issue and Standard of Review

[12] The parties submit, and I agree, that the standard of review applicable to the Decision in this case is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 25, 86).

[13] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at paras 12–15, 95). The starting point for a reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 85).

[14] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).

[15] The sole issue in this application is whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable.

IV. Analysis

[16] The Applicant submits that the Officer approached the application with “a closed mind” and “held preconceived notions against the Applicant”. The Applicant argued that this is reflected in the Officer’s failure to provide a meaningful analysis of the issues raised in his application.

[17] The Applicant argued that the Officer failed to assess the risk faced by Afro-Colombians, which the Applicant argues rises to the level of persecution. The Applicant argues that the Officer: mischaracterised the nature of the harm suffered generally; failed to apply a holistic approach to the analysis; ignored evidence; failed to apply the correct legal standards; and failed to properly consider the issue of state protection. In particular, the Applicant pointed to portions of the National Documentation Package (“NDP”) that addressed the issue of Afro-Colombian racism, which the Applicant argues cumulatively demonstrates persecution.

[18] The Respondent argued that the Decision is reasonable. The Respondent asserts that the Applicant provided little evidence to corroborate the facts set out in his PRRA application, and the Officer reasonably found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate persecution on a Convention ground under section 96 of the IRPA. Further, the Respondent argues that the Officer reasonably found that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of personalised forward-facing risks to establish that he is a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA if he returns to Colombia.

[19] The Respondent argued that it is insufficient for an applicant to only provide NDP and objective evidence of risk tied to a Convention ground (in this case risks tied to his race as an Afro-Colombian) to attract the protection of section 96 of the IRPA. Rather, an applicant must establish a link between the country conditions and their particular circumstances (Sallai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 446 [Sallai] at paras 71–73; Garces Canga v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 749 at para 52). I agree.

[20] The Applicant provided a statutory declaration that pointed to widespread discrimination aimed at Afro-Colombians, and objective country condition evidence that highlighted racism directed towards Afro-Colombian persons.

[21] A review of the reasons for Decision illustrates that the Officer engaged with the evidence submitted by the Applicant but ultimately found that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims for protection pursuant to sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA.

A. Section 96

[22] It was reasonable for the Officer to find that the level of discrimination the Applicant asserted did not amount to persecution. Persecution is distinct from discrimination; however, in certain circumstances, discriminatory treatment viewed as a cumulative whole may amount to persecution (Abbass v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 628 at paras 35–42).

[23] The Officer states:

“I have considered the factors present in the applicant’s statutory declaration. I find the applicant has provided little objective documentary evidence to corroborate the factors…

I find the evidence submitted supports that the applicant registered with the Victims Unit of the Colombian Government. However, I do not find the applicant has demonstrated with sufficient evidence that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. … However, there is insufficient evidence submitted to demonstrate that the applicant was personally targeted for any Convention reason. … I also do not find the evidence submitted demonstrates that the level of discrimination Afro-Colombians face amounts to persecution. Based on the evidence before me, I do not find the applicant has established that he is a person who would fact a reasonable possibility of persecution on any Convention ground as per section 96 of IRPA.”

[24] The Applicant failed to demonstrate how the NDP submitted and relied upon concerning the discrimination faced by Afro-Colombians related to his personal circumstances. It was open to the Officer to conclude that the Applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to link the country condition evidence to his personal circumstances.

[25] The Decision is reasonable and aligns with the applicable legal framework and the evidence submitted by the Applicant in support of his application. As noted by Justice Kane in Sallai at paragraph 56:

“The onus rests on a claimant to support their claim with sufficient evidence and to put their best foot forward. A failure to provide details or corroborating materials can be a basis for finding that evidence is insufficient (Ferguson at para 27; Haji v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 474 at para 20, ACWS (3d) (619). Insufficient evidence is a valid reason to reject a claim.”

B. Section 97

[26] The Applicant argued that the Decision was unreasonable. The Applicant’s arguments on this point repackage the Applicant’s submissions concerning the situation faced by Afro-Colombians and the discriminatory treatment they generally face.

[27] The Respondent argued that the Applicant’s argument mischaracterises the Decision. They argue that the reasons for Decision illustrate that the Applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence of a forward-facing risk of harm. The Applicant failed to provide evidence that illustrated he had been contacted or threatened, either directly or indirectly by any organized crime group since leaving Colombia in November 2021.

[28] I am persuaded by the Respondent’s argument. The Decision states:

“… There is also insufficient evidence, as well as little indication, that the applicant has been contacted or threatened since leaving Colombia in November 2021, or that anyone in Colombia, such as the cousin he was staying with or his daughters, have had contact with the groups regarding the applicant’s whereabouts. Overall, I find there is insufficient objective evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities, that any individual has an ongoing interest in the applicant.

… the applicant has provided little documentary evidence to demonstrate why the protection [of the Colombia Victims Unit] is not adequate. I note that expressing one’s doubt about the state’s ability or willingness to provide protection to its citizens is insufficient to establish that the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection. Overall, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated with sufficient documentary evidence that he would be unable to avail himself of state protection…”

[29] The Applicant has not pointed to any reviewable errors that would warrant this Court’s intervention. Bald allegations that the Officer reviewed the application with “a closed mind” and “held preconceived notions against the Applicant,” ignored evidence, or applied the wrong legal test that are not supported by evidence and argument are insufficient.

[30] The crux of the Applicant’s argument is that the Officer failed to assess the risk faced by Afro-Colombians. As set out above, in my view the Decision illustrates that the Officer considered the general risks faced by Afro-Colombians; however, the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this risk rises to the level of persecution in this case, as there was little to no evidence of personalized risks he faced. In addition, the Applicant provided little evidence to demonstrate that state protection would not be available. Finally, the Applicant provided no evidence of ongoing forward-facings risks from the cartels.

[31] The Decision was reasonable in view of the evidence provided and the applicable legal framework. The Applicant had the onus to establish his claim with clear evidence; he has failed to discharge this obligation. It is trite that an Applicant has an obligation to put their best foot forward; this means providing sufficient evidence to support their claim. The failure of an applicant to provide details or corroborating evidence in support of their claim is a reasonable basis for an Officer to determine that the evidence is insufficient (Centeno Arteaga v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 578 at para 27; Sallai at para 56).

[32] I note that while the Applicant’s Application for Leave and Judicial Review raises procedural fairness issues, the Applicant’s Memorandum of Argument did not develop the argument or point to specific issues. Accordingly, this issue will not be addressed further.

V. Conclusion

[33] The Applicant does not agree with the Decision, in particular what he describes as a failure of the Officer to properly consider and weigh the evidence of the general conditions of Afro-Colombian people and the cumulative impacts of the discrimination they face, which the Applicant says is persecution. A review of the reasons for the Decision shows that the Officer considered the evidence and applied the applicable factual and legal frameworks. In my view, the conclusions the Officer reached are reasonable. The Decision is justified, transparent, and intelligible and there is no reviewable error to justify this Court’s intervention.

[34] The parties did not pose a question for certification, and I agree none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-4715-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No question is certified.

"Julie Blackhawk"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: