LARRY CONSUEGRA PULIDO CAROL JOHANNA RAMOS ROMERO ISAELLA CONSUEGRA RAMOS Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2023 FC 477

Date: 20230404 Docket: IMM-3240-22 Citation: 2023 FC 477 Vancouver, (British Columbia), April 4, 2023 PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi BETWEEN: LARRY CONSUEGRA PULIDO CAROL JOHANNA RAMOS ROMERO ISAELLA CONSUEGRA RAMOS Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicants are a family: Larry Javier Consuegra Pulido and Carol Johanna Ramos Romero are in a common-law relationship and have a fourteen-year-old daughter.

The Applicants fled Colombia in June 2017 after the National Liberation Army ( " “ELN” " ) threatened them due to their community service work. They sought refugee protection in Canada. On January 17, 2019, the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] rejected their claims, finding that the Applicants had a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] in Sincelejo, Sucre. [ 2 ] Approximately two years after the RPD refused their claim, the Applicants applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA].

The Applicants provided evidence, post-dating the RPD refusal, showing that armed ELN members have repeatedly contacted the Applicants’ family members in Colombia, threatened them, and asked about the Applicants’ whereabouts. A Senior Immigration Officer ( " “the Officer” " ) at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] accepted this evidence but rejected the PRRA application. Like the RPD, the Officer found that the family had a viable IFA in Sincelejo, Sucre. [ 3 ] The Applicants challenge the Officer’s refusal of their PRRA in this judicial review.

The Officer’s analysis of the IFA is the determinative issue. As both parties agree, I have to consider this issue on a reasonableness standard of review. I agree with the Applicants that the Officer’s IFA analysis is unreasonable. The Officer misapprehends and fails to consider the relevant evidence with respect to ELN’s presence in and ability to track the Applicants in Sincelejo, the identified IFA. [ 4 ] Based on the reasons below, the application for judicial review is granted. II. Analysis [ 5 ] At issue is the Officer’s evaluation of the viability of an IFA in Sincelejo, Sucre.

A key issue for the RPD was the lack of evidence of the ELN’s continued interest because there was no evidence before the RPD of ELN communication with the Applicants’ family members in Colombia. At the PRRA stage, the Officer accepted that the ELN continues to target the Applicants’ family members in search of the Applicants and that lack of contact from the ELN is no longer a basis to find that an IFA is available.

The Officer focused the evaluation on another issue raised by the RPD: the lack of ELN presence in Sincelejo, the capital city of Sucre. [ 6 ] In particular, the Officer referenced a July 2021 Response to Information Request [RIR] which says that the ELN has a " “strong influence” " in Sucre, the department of which Sincelejo is the capital.

The Officer characterizes this reference to the ELN in Sucre as " “vague and in far less detail than other areas where the ELN is known to be active.” " The Officer concludes that " “it is unlikely the ELN is active in that city, and would be able to track the applicant.” " [ 7 ] I do not find the Officer’s finding that " “it is unlikely that ELN is active” " in Sincelejo supported by the evidence on which the Officer is relying, namely that the ELN has strong influence in the department of which Sincelejo is the capital. [ 8 ] Moreover, the Officer cites an August 2021 RIR but does not mention that it states : " “Sources indicated that criminal groups are ‘definitely’ able to track targeted individuals… The Senior Analyst further stated that the ‘main method’ used by criminal groups is ‘word of mouth’ through country-wide networks or ‘urban collaborators.” " The Officer asserts that the ELN would not be able to track the Applicants but does not explain how this finding is reached in the Applicants’ circumstances.

In particular, where the Officer accepted that the ELN is a powerful, criminal group, that has continued to target and threaten the Applicants’ family members in Colombia, a relatively short distance away from the proposed IFA. [ 9 ] Given the centrality of these findings in the Officer’s IFA assessment, the determinative issue of this claim, the decision cannot stand and must be redetermined.

[ 10 ] Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises. JUDGMENT in IMM-3240-22 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that : 1 . The application for judicial review is allowed; 2 . The matter is sent back to another officer to be redetermined; and 3 . No serious question of general importance is certified. “Lobat Sadrehashemi” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3240-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: LARRY CONSUEGRA PULIDO, CAROL JOHANNA RAMOS, ROMERO, ISAELLA CONSUEGRA RAMOS v.

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: toronto (ontario) DATE OF HEARING: march 14, 2023 JUDGMENT AND reasons: sadrehashemi, j. DATED: April 4, 2023 APPEARANCES : Me Karim Escalona For The ApplicantS Me Christopher Ezrin For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Lewis & Associates For The Applicants Attorney General of Canada Toronto (Ontario) For The Respondent