Docket: IMM-1811-16
Citation:
2016 FC 1248
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, November 9, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MARIA VICTORIA
FORERO CONSTAIN
NATALIA ROZO
FORERO
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Mrs. Maria Victoria Forero Constain (the
“Principal Applicant”) and her daughter Natalia Rozo Forero (the “Minor Applicant”),
collectively the “Applicants”, seek judicial review of the decision made by the
Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”),
dismissing their application for protection pursuant to section 96 and
subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).
[2]
The Applicants are citizens of Colombia. They
allege a fear of persecution at the hands of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (the “FARC”), based upon the alleged interest of that organization in
the Principal Applicant’s son and two mugging incidents committed against the Minor
Applicant, allegedly committed by members of the FARC.
[3]
The Board found that there was no persuasive
evidence to show that the FARC was interested in the Principal Applicant. It
further found a lack of evidence that the FARC was a threat to the Minor Applicant.
[4]
The Applicants argue that the Board erred in
dismissing their claims. First, they submit that no negative credibility findings
were made against the Minor Applicant. Next, they submit that the Board applied
the wrong test for persecution when it said “there is
no evidence before the panel that the minor claimant was targeted in a serious,
systematic, repetitive, persistent, or relentless manner.”
[5]
The Applicants also argue that the Board
unreasonably found that the lack of contact by the FARC with other family
members in Colombia undermines any claim that the FARC is interested in family
members of the Principal Applicant’s son.
[6]
The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
(the “Respondent”) submits that the Board committed no reviewable error in its
decision and that its conclusions were reasonable.
[7]
The decision of the Board involves a question of
mixed fact and law, that is assessment of the evidence against the relevant
statutory criteria; see the decision in Sanchez et al. v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship & Immigration) (2007), 360 N.R. 344 (F.C.A.) at
paragraph 9. Such questions are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness;
see the decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at
paragraph 47.
[8]
According to the decision in Dunsmuir, a
decision meets the standard of reasonableness when the reasons are justifiable,
transparent and intelligible. The decision will be reasonable when it “falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which
are defensible in respect of the facts and law”, see Dunsmuir, supra
at paragraph 47.
[9]
Considering the submissions of the parties, the
decision and the evidence of the Applicants, I am not persuaded that the Board
committed any reviewable error in making its decision.
[10]
There is no requirement for particular formulaic
language in describing the test for persecution and the Board did not err, in
this case, in its choice of words to describe the test of persecution.
The absence of credibility findings, per se, does not mean that the
Applicants satisfied the test for obtaining protection.
[11]
In the result, this application for judicial
review is dismissed, there is no question for certification arising.
Email this Content