Date: 20251030

Docket: IMM-2853-23

Citation: 2025 FC 1748

Ottawa, Ontario, October 30, 2025

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicants seek judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that denied their refugee claim.

[2] The Applicants are Cindy Johana Diaz Parra (PA) and her two daughters (Associate Applicants); they are all Colombian nationals. They say they fear harm in Colombia at the hands of the Clan del Golfo cartel (the Clan), who threatened them after the PA’s mother refused to cooperate with their demands. The RPD dismissed their refugee claim because it found the PA’s evidence lacked credibility.

[3] The Applicants seek judicial review of the RPD’s decision. They challenge the RPD’s negative credibility finding as well as its conclusion that the Associate Applicants were not threatened by the Clan.

[4] I am not persuaded by the Applicants’ arguments. The RPD’s credibility analysis is reasonable and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify this Court’s intervention, as required under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. Similarly, the RPD’s finding about the Associate Applicants is reasonable, because there was no evidence that the Clan had ever threatened them directly, separate and apart from the threats directed to the PA. For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.

I. Background

[5] The Applicants are citizens of Colombia. The PA’s narrative described several instances where she was harmed or threatened by the Clan. She alleges that in 2016, Clan members who were looking for her mother arrived at her house and tied her up and then took her mother away. She says her mother is a nurse, and during this incident the men forced her mother to treat a wounded comrade. Once that was done, the Clan members released the PA. Other incidents followed, according to the PA: in August 2019, Clan members broke into her apartment searching for her mother (who had fled Colombia and was in Canada at the time); in July 2021, the PA says she received WhatsApp messages and calls from the Clan, asking her to pay 25 million Colombian pesos and threatening her and her daughters.

[6] The PA says that she fled to Mexico with her daughters in October 2021, with the intention of getting advice about making a refugee claim. However, she was told that Mexico would not grant her asylum, and they would not be safe because the Clan had a presence and connections in Mexico. The PA claimed that they returned to Colombia in November 2021 and went into hiding at her father’s house. While she was there, the PA says that she received threatening messages from the Clan, this time demanding that she pay 35 million pesos and threatening to kill her, her daughters and the rest of her family if she reported this to the police. Despite this threat, the PA made a police report in February 2022.

[7] The Applicants left Colombia for the United States in February 2022; they arrived in Canada in March 2022 and made a refugee claim at the Port of Entry.

II. Decision Under Review

[8] The RPD determined that the Applicants were neither Convention Refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA], respectively. The determinative issue before the RPD was credibility.

[9] The RPD was not satisfied by the PA’s explanations regarding several credibility concerns raised at the RPD hearing. Consequently, the panel of the RPD (Panel) found that the PA had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the allegations she had made occurred. In reaching this conclusion, the RPD focused on four elements which, in their view, gave rise to serious credibility concerns.

[10] First, the Panel highlighted that during the hearing, the PA had failed to mention the 2016 attack as the first incident of harm perpetrated by the Clan. When asked during the hearing why did she not mention the 2016 incident where she was tied up by the agents of persecution, the PA testified that “this incident occurred to her mother where they were living at the time and that was why she did not mention it” (RPD Decision at para 16). The RPD found this explanation to be unreasonable as the incident involved both the PA and her mother. In reaching this conclusion, the RPD acknowledged the psychological report submitted by the PA and the fact that decision-makers should take a trauma-informed approach when assessing credibility. However, the RPD noted that this was a significant omission in the PA’s testimony rather than merely an inability to recall details. The RPD found that the 2016 event did not occur and that it was an embellishment to the PA’s BOC narrative, which negatively affected her credibility in relation to her core allegation. The RPD also made a negative inference on the PA’s overall credibility.

[11] Second, the RPD drew a negative inference on the PA’s overall credibility from the lack of reasonably expected documents or testimony from the PA’s mother to support the Applicants’ claim. The RPD noted that while there is no general requirement for a claimant to provide corroborating documents, in this case the lack of documents and testimony from the PA’s mother is a matter of consideration, given the negative credibility finding. The PA testified that she had obtained some evidence from her mother, and that she continued to be in contact with her. The RPD noted that the PA had over six months to gather all documents or witnesses and did not provide an explanation as to why she could not have asked her mother to testify at the hearing or provide supporting documents.

[12] Third, the RPD found that on a balance of probabilities, the Applicants did not stay at the PA’s father’s house in hiding upon their return from Mexico in 2021. The RPD did not accept the PA’s explanation as to why she had failed to list her father’s address on her Schedule A form. The Panel also noted a discrepancy between the PA’s testimony that she stayed at her father’s house for four months and her father’s letter of support, which indicated that the Applicants stayed at his house “for a few days”. Given the inconsistency, the RPD gave the father’s letter no weight in corroborating the PA’s allegations that they had stayed with him in hiding from November 2021 until February 2022.

[13] Fourth, the RPD found that the threatening messages received by the PA and the denunciations she made to the Columbian authorities did not cure deficiencies in credibility already raised. With regards to the threatening messages, the RPD took issue with the lack of date stamps, that it was not clear what phone numbers the messages allegedly came from, and that the messages sent to “Sandra Fiscalia” (who had received the PA’s denunciation) were forwarded messages of uncertain origin rather than first-hand threats from the Clan. The Panel assigned no weight to one of the screenshots from an unknown number that was marked as “unread” and missing a date stamp. The RPD assigned little weight to the screenshots of messages sent to Sandra Fiscalia, since these were all forwarded messages and not the originals allegedly received by the Applicant.

[14] Lastly, the RPD noted that the two minor Associate Applicants had not received any threats from the Clan any other group.

[15] Based on the above elements, the RPD found that the Applicants were neither Convention refugees, nor persons in need of protection under IRPA. The RPD dismissed the Applicants’ claim, giving rise to the present application for judicial review.

III. Issues and Standard of Review

[16] The only issue in this case is whether the RPD’s credibility findings are reasonable.

[17] This question is assessed under the framework for reasonableness review set out in Vavilov, and confirmed in Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 [Mason].

[18] In summary, under the Vavilov framework, a reviewing court is to review the reasons given by the administrative decision-maker and determine whether the decision is based on an internally coherent chain of reasoning and is justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints (Vavilov at para 85; Mason at para 8). The onus is on the Applicants to demonstrate that “any shortcomings or flaws … are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” (Vavilov at para 100). Absent exceptional circumstances, reviewing courts must not interfere with the decision-maker’s factual findings and cannot reweigh and reassess evidence considered by the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 125).

[19] One preliminary procedural note should be mentioned here. The Respondent objected to paragraphs 6 - 13 of the PA’s affidavit filed on the judicial review, arguing that these portions contained new evidence. The Applicants did not object to the Court ignoring these parts of the affidavit. I agree with the Respondent’s objection and therefore have not considered these paragraphs of the PA’s affidavit.

IV. Analysis

[20] The Applicants advance two primary arguments: they challenge all four of the RPD’s credibility findings; they also submit that the RPD’s conclusion that the Associate Applicants had not been threatened by the Clan is unreasonable because it ignores the evidence to the contrary.

A. The RPD’s credibility assessment was reasonable

[21] The Applicants argue that the RPD’s credibility findings cannot stand because they are based on a microscopic examination of the PA’s evidence. For example, they say that the PA’s failure to mention the 2016 attack in which she was tied up and her mother was taken to provide medical aid to an injured member of the Clan was a minor omission which was reasonably explained. They say that it makes sense that the PA would describe the 2019 incident as the first event, since she was not the target of the 2016 attack. The Applicants also submit that the RPD failed to give due consideration to the PA’s mental health and the challenges her situation posed in regard to her testimony.

[22] Similarly, the Applicants submit that the RPD’s negative credibility finding based on the discrepancy in the evidence about when the Applicants arrived at her father’s home and how long they stayed there is unreasonable because this was a minor or peripheral aspect of their claim. They say that the RPD placed undue emphasis on the port of entry notes and the forms the PA completed when she arrived, without taking account of her mental state when she entered Canada.

[23] Finally on this point, the Applicants contend that the RPD should not have drawn a negative inference from the absence of evidence from the PA’s mother. They say that this finding was based on a microscopic examination of the evidence and failed to consider the PA’s explanation or the other evidence that supported their narrative.

[24] I am not persuaded that there is any basis to disturb any of these findings by the RPD. The Applicants’ arguments amount to a request to the Court to re-weigh the evidence, and to assign different importance to these elements of the claim. That is not the role of a court on judicial review: Vavilov at para 125. Moreover, the PA’s refugee claim confirms that she claims to have become a target because of her association with her mother. She was not a mere bystander during the 2016 incident; she claimed to have been tied up while the Clan members forcibly removed her mother. The Applicants’ refugee claim rests on a narrative that began when the PA was targeted because of her association with her mother.

[25] Another core element of the refugee claim relates to the Applicants’ efforts to evade the Clan, first by fleeing to Mexico, then by returning to Colombia and going into hiding at the PA’s father’s home. The date of their arrival and length of their stay with the father cannot, by any measure, reasonably be understood to be peripheral to their claim.

[26] The absence of evidence about central elements of an asylum claim can form the basis for a negative finding, where that evidence could reasonably have been obtained and the failure to produce it is not justified: see Al-Halawa v Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1655 at para 40 and the cases cited therein; Senadheerage v Canada (MCI), 2020 FC 968 at para 36. In this case, the PA said she became a target because the Clan wanted her mother’s help and cooperation. The PA obtained some evidence from her mother but failed to produce a statement or any evidence about the mother’s refugee claim in Canada. The RPD’s finding that the Applicants’ failure to provide any evidence from the mother weighed against their credibility is reasonable. There is no basis to disturb this finding.

[27] Turning to the RPD’s finding about the other evidence, the Applicants submit that the screenshots of threats the PA received from the Clan are credible because the PA explained the lack of a date stamp and different phone numbers displayed on some of the messages. They say that the RPD should have accepted the screenshots because there was not a sufficient basis to call into question the genuineness or authenticity of this evidence. In addition, the Applicants argue that the RPD failed to consider the other corroborative evidence and instead discounted it because of its previous negative credibility findings.

[28] I am not persuaded. Once again, the Applicant are asking the Court to re-weigh the evidence. An examination of the screenshots confirms that the RPD’s findings are grounded in the evidence, and there is no exceptional circumstance that calls for the Court to intervene in the RPD’s assessment of this evidence. The RPD examined and discussed all of the evidence, and I am unable to find that its analysis was fundamentally flawed in any way. Some of the screenshots are missing key information, and several were simply messages that were forwarded rather than originals that had been received directly. The RPD considered the PA’s explanations for these deficiencies but found them lacking. There is no basis to interfere with this finding.

[29] Overall, for the reasons set out above, I am not persuaded that there is any significant flaw in the RPD’s credibility assessment. While I tend to agree with the Applicants that the RPD strayed when it criticized the PA for not knowing more about the mother’s refugee claim, that is a relatively minor finding in the overall credibility analysis. Even if I accept that this particular finding may be unreasonable, this alone is not sufficient to undermine the rest of the RPD’s credibility findings.

B. The RPD’s finding about the threat to the Associate Applicants is reasonable

[30] A final issue raised by the Applicants has to do with the RPD’s finding that the Associate Applicants were not personally threatened or targeted by the Clan. In the Applicants’ view, the Panel erred in ignoring evidence showing that the minor Applicants were directly threatened by the Clan. They say the following statement in the decision demonstrates the error:

[39] The principal claimant did not testify to or submit evidence regarding any threats or harm that the two minor claimants had received or suffered. Based on the evidence submitted and the principal claimant’s testimony as the designated representative, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the minor claimants have not received any threats from the Clan del Golfo or any other nefarious groups.

[31] The Applicants argue that the Panel overlooked the PA’s Basis of Claim narrative where she specifically stated that the Clan had threatened to kill her daughters. In addition, they point out that the PA reiterated this during the RPD hearing and these threats were also included in the denunciation report she filed with Colombian authorities.

[32] In my view, the Applicants’ argument is not based on a reading of the decision as a whole. The Applicants say that the RPD’s finding flies in the face of the consistent evidence that the Clan had threatened to kill or harm the Associate Applicants. However, reading the decision as a whole makes it clear that at this stage in the analysis, the RPD was simply examining whether there was evidence that the Associate Applicants had been threatened directly, separate and apart from the threats against them directed to the PA.

[33] There can be no doubt that the RPD was aware of the PA’s claim that the Clan had threatened both her and the Associate Applicants. That is referenced at several points in the decision, including the initial summary of the Applicants’ narrative, where the RPD referred to “threats to [the PA] and her daughters”, and later in the decision when the RPD dealt with the omission of the first incident. The RPD did not ignore the PA’s evidence that the Clan had told her they intended to harm her daughters.

[34] In light of this, the only reasonable interpretation of the RPD’s finding quoted above is that it is referring to threats made by the Clan directly to the daughters. All of the evidence showed that the Clan had expressed its threats to the PA. On reviewing the decision as a whole, I am satisfied that the RPD was referring to threats directed towards the daughters directly when it concluded that “the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the minor claimants have not received any threats from the clan del Golfo or any other nefarious groups.”

[35] Based on this interpretation, I am not persuaded that the RPD’s finding is unreasonable. It reflects the evidence, including the PA’s narrative, the denunciation, and her testimony. The RPD simply stated what the evidence showed – and did not show – in regard to threats against the Associate Applicants. That finding is reasonable.

IV Conclusion

[36] Based on the analysis set out above, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. The RPD’s credibility findings and conclusion regarding threats directed towards the Associate Applicants are reasonable: they are based on the evidence and the RPD’s analysis is clearly explained and reflects a rational and logical chain of reasoning. I can find no basis to find the decision to be unreasonable.

[37] There is no question of general importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-2853-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no question of general importance for certification.

"William F. Pentney"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: