Date: 20101027
Docket: IMM-491-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1057
Ottawa, Ontario, October 27, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
JOSE FERNANDO RESTREPO CATANO,
VICTORIA EUGENIA DAVILA LONDONO
AND VALENTINA RESTREPO DAVILA
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr. Jose Fernando Restrepo Catano, his wife, Ms.
Victoria Eugenia Davila Londono, and their daughter, Valentina Restrepo Davila,
claimed refugee protection in Canada on the basis of their fear of mistreatment
in Colombia. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied their claims,
finding that the evidence they relied on did not show there was a serious
possibility of persecution, or a likelihood of harm, if they returned to Colombia.
[2]
Mr. Restrepo Catano and Ms. Davila Londono argue
that the Board overlooked important facts, which caused it to render an
unreasonable decision. They ask me to overturn the Board’s decision and order a
new hearing before a different panel. They do not challenge the decision
regarding their daughter, who is a citizen of the United
States.
[3]
I cannot find a basis for overturning the
Board’s decision. In particular, I find that the Board’s conclusion was
reasonable in light of the evidence before it. Therefore, I must dismiss this
application for judicial review.
[4]
The only issue is whether the Board’s decision
was unreasonable.
II.
Factual Background
[5]
Mr. Restrepo Catano described the difficulties
his family had encountered with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC) in Colombia. His father
and uncles were forced to pay a weekly stipend to FARC. When one of his uncles
refused, he was assaulted. His complaint to police forced him and his brothers
to flee to escape reprisals.
[6]
The FARC told Mr. Restrepo Catano’s father that
he would have to assume the financial obligations of those who had fled. If he
did not, the family would be killed. The father sold the business and told Mr.
Restrepo Catano to leave Colombia. He fled to the United States in June 1995. His cousin was murdered in 1997.
[7]
Ms. Davila Londono’s family encountered similar
problems. In 1999, FARC took control of the city of Armenia, where her family lives, following an earthquake. Her family
decided to move to Calarca where they owned a farm. However, FARC was active in
this area as well, so in July 1999, she decided to leave for the United States. After she left, FARC held
her family hostage, demanding title to the farm. Her parents fled to the United States and then to Spain. The farm was later sold. An uncle
was murdered in 2003 after returning to Colombia from abroad.
[8]
Ms Davila Londono stayed in the U.S. where she met and married Mr. Restrepo
Catano in 2000. Their daughter was born in 2002.
[9]
The claimants remained in the U.S. until 2008,
when they travelled to Canada
and claimed refugee protection.
III.
The Board’s Decision
[10]
The Board believed the claimants’ account of
events. It denied their claims for the following reasons:
• None of the claimants, or anyone in their
immediate families, was personally targeted or harmed.
• Mr. Restrepo Catano’s father still lives and works
in Colombia, and FARC has not
found him. Even though he moves from time to time, FARC would be able to find
him if they were still, after 14 years, looking for him.
• While Mr. Restrepo Catano was in business with his
father, his father was more at risk than he was.
• While Ms. Davila Londono’s relatives might be at
risk, she had never been targeted or harmed.
• The claimants sent their daughter to visit her
grandparents in Colombia in
2006, when she was 3. They must not have believed she was at risk.
[11]
The Board concluded that the claimants would not
face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of harm in Colombia.
IV. Was the Board’s Decision Unreasonable?
[12]
The claimants argue that the Board erred by
failing to appreciate that Mr. Restrepo Catano’s close family members had been
targeted by FARC and, therefore, that he was also at risk. In particular, they
point out that the Board appeared to ignore the murder of Mr. Restrepo Catano’s
cousin. They also argue that the Board overlooked the fact that FARC often
targets landowners, such as Ms. Davila Londono’s family. In addition, the
family defied the FARC by selling the farm, increasing the likelihood of
reprisals.
[13]
The claimants point to other facts not cited by
the Board. The Board did not refer to the fact that Ms. Davila Londono’s father
was threatened in 2007. Nor did it mention that her family was effectively
living in exile in Panama.
[14]
The claimants argue that the Board’s failure to
consider the totality of the evidence caused it to render an unreasonable
decision.
[15]
In my view, while the Board may not have cited
all of the evidence in the claimants’ favour, it did not overlook any
significant facts that contradicted its conclusion. Its reasons make clear that
it understood the essence of the claimants’ circumstances and the various
events affecting their respective families. The facts that the Board allegedly
ignored could not, in my view, have affected the outcome. Accordingly, the
Board’s conclusion that, looking at the evidence as a whole, the claimants had
not proved a serious possibility of persecution or a likelihood of law was
reasonable as it falls within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes based
on the facts and the law.
V.
Conclusion and Disposition
[16]
The Board’s conclusion that the claimants did
not meet the burden of proof was reasonable on the evidence. Therefore, I must
dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question
of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is
that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content