SEBASTIAN HOYOS GRAJALES YEIMI VANESSA GIL CARDONA DANNA HOYOS GIL Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2023 FC 603

Date: 20230426 Docket: IMM-2895-22 Citation: 2023 FC 603 Toronto, Ontario, April 26, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:SEBASTIAN HOYOS GRAJALES YEIMI VANESSA GIL CARDONA DANNA HOYOS GILApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1]Mr. Sebastian Hoyos Grajales (the “Principal Applicant”), his spouse Ms.

Yeimi Vanessa Gil Cardona, and their minor childDanna Hoyos Gil (collectively the “Applicants”) seek judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board,Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”), dismissing their claims for protection either as Convention refugees or persons in needof protection, within the scope of

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 sought protection on the basis of a fear of persecution from the RevolutionaryArmed Forces of Colombia People’s Army (the “FARC”).

They alleged that the recent kidnapping of a cousin of the PrincipalApplicant and previous violence against family members puts them at risk. [3]The RPD determined that an Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”) is available to the Applicants in Barranquilla and Florencia. [4]The decision of the RPD is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, following the decision of the Supreme Court ofCanada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 , [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653. [5]The Applicants argue that the RPD made an unreasonable decision in finding that an IFA is available in Colombia.

Theycontend that the RPD erred in applying the test for an IFA, as set out in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment andImmigration), [1992] 1.

F.C. 706 at 710-711 [Rasaratnam]. [6]The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the decision is reasonable. [7]In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review "“bears the hallmarks of reasonableness —justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraintsthat bear on the decision”"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [8]I am not persuaded by the Applicants’ arguments.

According to the decision in Rasaratnam, supraat 710-711, the following testapplies to finding an IFA: First, the Board must be satisfied that there is no serious possibility of a claimant being persecuted in the IFA.

Second, it must be objectively reasonable to expect a claimant to seek safety in a different part of the country before seekingprotection in Canada. [9]The RPD addressed the two branches of the IFA test, that is whether the agents of persecution have the means and motivationsto pursue the Applicants, and whether the Applicants have shown that their relocation to one of the two IFAs is unreasonable. [10]The decision shows that the RPD considered both the personal, subjective evidence submitted by the Applicants, as well as thecountry condition evidence.

The RPD, not the Court, is mandated to weigh the evidence. [11]The RPD’s conclusions about the availability of an IFA are supported by the evidence and conform with the legal test for anIFA. There is no basis for judicial intervention. [12]In the result, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification. JUDGMENT in IMM-2895-22 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

“E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2895-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: SEBASTIAN HOYOS GRAJALES YEIMI VANESSA GIL CARDONA DANNA HOYOS GIL. v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 5, 2023 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: April 26, 2023 APPEARANCES : Adela Crossley FOR THE APPLICANTS Lorne McClenaghan FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Crossley Law Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT