Docket: IMM-3360-24
Citation: 2025 FC 416
Ottawa, Ontario, March 6, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN: |
JHOAN SEBASTIAN MIRANDA MARTINEZ |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Jhoan Sebastian Miranda Martinez seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] that determined that he was neither a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act], nor a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Act, because he had a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] in Bogotá, Colombia.
[2] The Applicant is from Cucuta, a city in northern Colombia near the Venezuelan border. He holds a degree in Environmental Engineering and worked as a social activist in Colombia before arriving in Canada. According to his Basis of Claim form, he was involved with the Canadian Human Rights International Organization [CHRIO], where he campaigned against various armed groups, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC], the National Liberation Army [ELN], and the Aguilas Negras, or “Black Eagles.”
[3] The Applicant’s activism primarily focused on preventing the recruitment of young people into these groups. Beyond his human rights work, he also participated in community development initiatives such as health brigades, neighborhood action boards, and environmental programs related to recycling, composting, land management, and environmental protection.
[4] The Applicant says that his activism attracted the attention of individuals identifying themselves as members of the Black Eagles, who began issuing death threats against him. On November 24, 2019, eight individuals who allegedly claimed affiliation with the Black Eagles kidnapped him. He was interrogated about intelligence networks in universities and pressured to provide information about FARC and ELN leaders and operations in the Cucuta area. The Applicant claims to have been subjected to various forms of torture, including suffocation attempts, physical assaults, being restrained and struck with objects, having parts of his hair pulled out, sustaining multiple injuries such as bone fractures, and being left in a roadside pipe where he nearly drowned.
[5] During the ordeal, his captors allegedly told him that they had executed his sister along with other CHRIO members and warned that he would suffer the same fate if he failed to provide the demanded information. He states that he was eventually rescued by community members who transported him to a hospital, where he received medical treatment for his injuries. Following the incident, the Applicant claims that his parents also received threats, observed motorcycles stationed near their residence, and reported incidents of individuals shooting at their doors and windows. In response to these threats, he relocated to his sister’s home for safety.
[6] On December 15, 2022, the Applicant entered Canada and subsequently filed a refugee protection claim. In support of his claim, he submitted medical documentation indicating facial injuries, including a fractured jaw, contusions on his eyebrow, and injuries to his lip and oral cavity. The medical report stated that he required surgery, speech therapy, and physical therapy. Additionally, an initial psychotherapy assessment report documented symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep disturbances, and nightmares. Further supporting his claim, the Applicant provided letters from various family members, including his parents, sibling, grandparent, aunts, and an uncle. These letters corroborated his account of being attacked, with most identifying the perpetrators as the Black Eagles.
[7] Although the RPD had credibility concerns regarding aspects of the Applicant’s testimony, it did not elaborate, as it found the issue of IFA in Bogotá to be determinative. The RPD conducted the required two-prong analysis to assess the availability and reasonableness of an IFA in Bogotá.
[8] Before applying the formal IFA test, the RPD examined the nature of the alleged persecutors. Based on the Applicant’s then counsel’s submissions and objective country condition evidence from the National Documentation Package [NDP], it determined that the Black Eagles were likely a defunct paramilitary group that emerged during Colombia’s demobilization process between 2003 and 2006. It concluded that the name is now used by various unconnected individuals and groups for intimidation purposes, lacking organizational structure, leadership, or operational capacity. The RPD found that evidence suggested these groups primarily issued threats and distributed pamphlets, rather than carrying out systematic violence.
[9] For the first prong of the IFA test, the RPD assessed whether the Applicant faced a serious possibility of persecution or harm in Bogotá. It noted that Bogotá is approximately 568 kilometers, about 12 hours by car, from Cucuta, where the alleged persecution occurred. Given its prior determination about the Black Eagles’ lack of structure and reach, the RPD concluded that those posing as Black Eagles in this case lacked the capability to actively pursue the Applicant beyond his home region.
[10] The RPD considered the Applicant’s claim that his persecutors had connections with corrupt police officers who could track him anywhere in Colombia. While it acknowledged the existence of corruption in Colombia, including infiltration of state institutions by paramilitary and guerrilla groups, it found insufficient evidence that the individuals who allegedly targeted the Applicant had the level of influence necessary to track him to Bogotá.
[11] In assessing the second prong of the IFA test, whether relocation to Bogotá would be reasonable, the RPD considered the Applicant’s education, employment prospects, and adaptability. It noted that he holds a degree in Environmental Engineering and had prior experience in environmental projects, factors that would support his employability in Bogotá. Additionally, it found that his ability to relocate to and adapt to life in Canada indicated that he could also adapt to Bogotá, where he would be more familiar with the culture, language, and society.
[12] The RPD also examined practical factors such as transportation, language, ethnicity, and religion. It noted that Bogotá has an international airport and an extensive road network, ensuring accessibility. The Applicant speaks Spanish, the country’s official language, and identifies as Catholic, the predominant religion in Colombia. Based on these factors, the RPD concluded that relocation to Bogotá would not impose undue hardship.
[13] Regarding the Applicant’s supporting evidence, the RPD reviewed letters from his family and acquaintances but found they lacked sufficient probative value to establish that he could not safely relocate to Bogotá. It also reviewed the medical report and photographs submitted to corroborate the alleged attack. However, it noted that the medical report only documented facial injuries, with no mention of other injuries described in the Applicant’s narrative, such as pulled fingernails and trauma to other body parts. When questioned about this discrepancy, the Applicant testified that he only provided the portion of the report listing the most serious injuries. The RPD found this explanation implausible, reasoning that providing complete medical documentation would have been expected to strengthen his claim.
[14] Based on a balance of probabilities, the RPD determined that the injuries sustained on November 24, 2019, contrary to what the Applicant asserts during the hearing, may have resulted from a fight with another individual rather than an attack by Black Eagles imposters. However, it stated that even if the injuries had been caused by such individuals in Cucuta, this would not prevent the Applicant from safely relocating to Bogotá.
[15] The central issue is the reasonableness of the RPD’s IFA analysis. Regarding the safety prong, key sub-issues include whether the RPD mischaracterized the structure of the Black Eagles, erred in its findings on state complicity, and improperly assessed the Black Eagles’ ability to locate and pursue the Applicant. On the reasonableness prong, the primary question is whether the RPD adequately considered the impact of the Applicant’s documented mental health conditions on his ability to relocate without undue hardship.
[16] A secondary issue concerns the RPD’s credibility assessments. The core sub-issues include whether the RPD improperly dismissed medical evidence by emphasizing omissions over documented injuries, made an unsupported inference that the injuries resulted from a fight, and failed to properly consider corroborating family letters confirming the Black Eagles’ attack.
[17] I agree with the parties that the standard of review is reasonableness, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov].
[18] The test for establishing the viability of an IFA is two-pronged: Rasaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (C.A.), [1992] 1 FC 706 (FCA) [Rasaratnam] at 711; Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (C.A.), [1994] 1 FC 589 (FCA) [Thirunavukkarasu] at 597. Both must be satisfied for the decision-maker to determine that an applicant has a viable IFA.
[19] The burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that at least one prong of the test is not met: Thirunavukkarasu at 590; Yafu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 293 at para 8; Ogunjinmi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 109 at para 26.
[20] The threshold for establishing unreasonableness is high: Adeleye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 81 [Adeleye] at para 38; Elusme v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 225 at para 25; Jean Baptiste v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1106 at para 21. It requires concrete evidence that conditions in the proposed IFA would endanger the applicant’s life or safety: Ranganathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (C.A.), [2001] 2 FC 164 (FCA) at para 15.
[21] The first prong requires establishing that there is no serious possibility of the applicant facing persecution in the proposed IFA: Rasaratnam at 710. In the context of section 97 of the Act, it must be established that the applicant would not be personally subjected to a section 97 danger or risk in the proposed IFA.
[22] The second prong assesses whether conditions in the proposed IFA would make relocation unreasonable, considering all relevant circumstances, including the applicant’s personal situation: Thirunavukkarasu at 597-98. This analysis must consider available psychological evidence and mental health conditions, which are key in determining whether relocation would result in undue hardship: Cartagena v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 289 at para 11; Ahsan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 146 at paras 23-24. Nonetheless, while psychological evidence is an important factor, it must be assessed with objective evidence, such as actual living conditions in the proposed IFA: Adeleye at para 36; Guerrero Garcia v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1052 at paras 30-31.
[23] I find the RPD’s IFA analysis reasonable on both prongs. The Applicant’s arguments are either not supported by the factual record or are invitations for this Court to reweigh evidence. While I have some concerns about the RPD’s so called “common sense”
reasoning and its speculative comments regarding the cause of the Applicant’s injuries, I need not consider the Applicant’s credibility arguments. I agree with the RPD’s reasoning that, even if individuals posing as Black Eagles in Cucuta caused the Applicant’s injuries, this does not undermine its conclusion of the dispositive issue — whether Bogotá remains a viable IFA.
[24] The Applicant challenges this aspect of the decision based on three interrelated arguments: (1) the RPD mischaracterized the Black Eagles as a defunct organization rather than an active paramilitary group; (2) the RPD failed to consider evidence of state complicity; and (3) the RPD erred in assessing the capacity of the Black Eagles to pursue him in Bogotá. I reject all these arguments.
[25] First, the RPD’s characterization of the Black Eagles as a defunct paramilitary group, now a label used by various unconnected individuals and groups, aligns with both objective country condition evidence in the NDP and the Applicant’s own testimony. The hearing transcript shows that the Applicant’s counsel for the RPD hearing has described the Black Eagles as “a name used by different illegal groups... to make trust while hiding their identity”
and as “an umbrella to commit whatever atrocities they are committing.”
This aligns with the RPD’s conclusion that the Black Eagles lack organization, structure, and leadership as a cohesive entity. The Applicant’s current attempt to present the Black Eagles as a structured organization at the judicial review stage contradicts his own statements before the RPD. He has not presented explanations that convince me why his current position is the reasonable one, and why the previous one, which the RPD agrees with, is not.
[26] Second, the RPD explicitly acknowledged the possibility of state complicity, stating in paragraph 19 of its decision that “corruption exists in Colombia, and it is possible for paramilitary and guerrilla structures to infiltrate the police force and other government bodies.”
However, it made a fact-specific finding that “the evidence on file does not support that the people the claimant said targeted him were part of a paramilitary group or a guerrilla group with a large network or sufficient influence to track the claimant to the proposed IFA.”
Therefore, the Applicant’s reliance on Li v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 811, to argue that state complicity negates IFA availability is misplaced. Proper application of this principle requires evidence that state actors would be motivated to pursue the individual across jurisdictions. Here, the RPD reasonably found no such evidence linking those who targeted the Applicant to a broad state apparatus capable of tracking him nationwide. The mere existence of corruption within state institutions does not automatically render an IFA unavailable without specific evidence that corrupt officials would be motivated to pursue the Applicant in Bogotá.
[27] The Applicant cites NDP excerpts suggesting links between the Black Eagles and state actors. However, a full reading of those excerpts supports, rather than contradicts, the RPD’s characterization. The selected passages do not undermine the RPD’s conclusion or show that it overlooked key evidence. This Court has consistently held that decision-makers are presumed to have considered all evidence before them unless there is a clear indication to the contrary: Basanti v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1068 at para 24; Fang v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1399 at para 45. In my view, the RPD’s reasoning reflects sufficient engagement with the country condition evidence regarding the Black Eagles’ nature and reach.
[28] Third, the RPD’s conclusion that the Black Eagles lack the capacity to locate and pursue the Applicant in Bogotá is reasonable based on geographic and organizational factors. It noted that Bogotá is approximately 568 kilometers from Cucuta, reasoning that the distance helps create a significant degree of anonymity. Additionally, its finding that those targeting the Applicant were individual actors using the Black Eagles name, rather than members of a unified and sophisticated national network, is consistent with country condition evidence indicating that threats and intimidation tactics associated with the Black Eagles rarely extend beyond pamphlets, verbal warnings, or localized incidents. I therefore have no reason to doubt that its conclusion is based on a reasonable interpretation of the available evidence.
[29] The Applicant argues that the RPD failed to consider his mental health condition when assessing the reasonableness of relocation to Bogotá. However, I am of the view that the record and jurisprudence show that the RPD’s conclusion on the reasonableness of the proposed IFA is justified, and consistent with the evidence presented.
[30] Jurisprudence sets a high bar for unreasonableness in IFA assessments. As I explained in the Legal Framework section and as the RPD noted in its decision, conditions must jeopardize life or safety, not merely cause hardship such as loss of employment, status, or quality of life. The Applicant bears the burden of proving that conditions in Bogotá meet this threshold.
[31] The Applicant’s primary claim that the RPD ignored the potential impact of his mental health faces two difficulties. First, the transcript evidence clearly demonstrates that the Applicant never advanced this argument during the hearing despite multiple explicit opportunities to do so. When directly asked if there was “any other reason”
preventing him from living in Bogotá or Medellín beyond his fear of the Black Eagles, the Applicant explicitly responded: “No. The only reason I am not in Colombia even in Bogotá Medellin is because of the Aguilas Negras. If they were not there, I would not be here.”
Similarly, counsel’s submissions emphasized safety concerns rather than psychological barriers to relocation.
[32] Second, the RPD acknowledged the existence of the initial psychotherapy assessment report. It nevertheless found that this document did not address the specific question of whether relocation within Colombia would be unreasonable due to the Applicant’s mental health. Rather, the assessment noted symptoms of post-traumatic stress, sleep problems, and nightmares, but made no recommendations regarding accommodation for the hearing, let alone any assessment of the viability of internal relocation. The RPD cannot be faulted for failing to draw conclusions that the psychological evidence itself did not support or suggest. The Applicant’s reliance on Olalere v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 385, therefore cannot help him in these circumstances, as that case requires psychological evidence to be considered when presented. Here, the RPD did exactly that by engaging with the evidence and providing a thorough analysis.
[33] Lastly, the RPD’s analysis appropriately considered the full range of the Applicant’s personal characteristics. Key factors considered include the Applicant’s degree in Environmental Engineering, employment history with environmental projects in Colombia, demonstrated adaptability with his successful relocation to Canada, language compatibility as a native Spanish speaker, religious compatibility as a Catholic in a predominantly Catholic country, and Bogotá’s accessibility with an international airport and excellent road network. Hence, its conclusion that relocation would not cause undue hardship is reasonable and deserves deference.
[34] I conclude that the RPD’s IFA analysis is reasonable on both prongs of the IFA test and dispositive of the case. The RPD appropriately characterized Black Eagles as a defunct name used by various unconnected groups, a finding supported by both objective country evidence and the Applicant’s own submissions testimony during the RPD hearing. It also properly considered the Applicant’s personal circumstances—his education, employment history, and adaptability—in determining that relocation to Bogotá would not create undue hardship.
[35] Neither party proposed a question for certification.
Email this Content